On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:38:31PM +0200, Pim van Pelt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:10:51PM +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: | At 15:02 +0200 24/4/02, Pim van Pelt wrote: | >Hi Joao, and other engineers, | > | >When deploying a set of root DNS servers, I think it is a good idea to | >allocate some chunk of space (say a /32 or /31) and assign each nameserver | >that we use in the RIPE region one aggregatable /35. The other RIRs can | >do the same thing resulting in 24 to 48 TLAs which we can then stick | >onto root nameservers. | | I am not sure I understand this paragraph. Are you suggesting that | the address blocks where the different root servers reside should be | aggregatable into one superblock? I hope not.
I did not say that these should be combined into one aggregatable block at all. I said that if we were to allocate a /32 for use of DNS root nameservers, that we would have 8 /35s herein, and 16 /35s if we were to allocate a /31 for the use of DNS. All three RIRs would then have 24 or 48 of these /35 TLAs respectively.
I would prefer if IANA, rather than RIRs, assigns TLAs for root nameservers. That will make transfering root nameserver between regions easier. Root nameservers are something related to whole Internet, thus we shall not divide it between regions.
By the way, some paragraphs down the line I actually DID propose to create an administrative hierarchy based on /48 aggregates but I fully realise that his is going out on a limb. I think however, that if we were to use 'n' TLAs for nameservers, that I would prefer to see 'n' /48s in my routing table than 'n' /35s, this of course from the conservation point of view.
That would require additional filter rules. I think that allowed size of announced prefixes should be some range and we shall not partition IPv6 address space in many parts with different allowed prefix lengths. More filter rules == higher CPU usage.
The same holds for Internet Exchanges. Perhaps for other sites as well. How do we plan to have AMS-IX reachable from networks that do not peer with AS1200, if the AMS-IX is assigned only a /48 ? I see two possibilities (obvious ones, that is). 1. Allocate /35 to AMS-IX and let it announce that from AS1200 I agree with this one.
2. Make global policy to have 2001:7f8::/32 prefixlen 48 and lower allowable. See above.
Regards, -- Jan Oravec project coordinator XS26 - 'Access to IPv6' http://www.xs26.net jan.oravec@xs26.net