I couldn't agree more. The only conceivable objection to the proposal is that it potentially sets a precedent that will be used to trash the IPv6 routing heirarchy. Given carefully worded policy, that precedent need not be set. Mat.

-----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] Sent: 24 April 2002 13:55 To: Randy Bush Cc: Joao Luis Silva Damas; lir-wg@ripe.net; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region

Hi,

...

...

Seriously now. I strongly believe that if a root server were to stop operations, it would be in everyone's benefit that either

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:44:44AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote: the address

...

...

space where it is hosted moves with it OR **the address space which it was using is returned**

nope. should nasa return 128.8 just because the server is moved from 128.8.10.90? i don't think so. but, if it is moved, they should not put anything else at 128.8.10.90 for a decade or two.

Which makes you agree with Joao, doesn't it? The way it was done with 128.8 obviously created problems, which would mean that "special networks for root name servers" might be a good thing after all...

Lacking experience with root name server operations, I didn't comment the whole proposal yet, and I'm still not sure what is "the right thing to do".

Let's turn it around - which of both approaches would be "the wrong thing to do", and why?

Having special-case networks for every other purpose is clearly a bad thing, but I think most would agree that root name server *are* special because that's the only thing you cannot (completely) put into DNS...

With the number of root name servers, I don't see any major issues due to address wastage or enormous numbers of additional routes.

Just my $0.2...

Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 44543

SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299