Re: Order in the working-group!

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Hardie;

> Masataka Ohta writes:
> > As for Hardie's draft, I can not understand why unique IP address
> > of root servers must be confined AS local.
> > 
> > As was discussed in MInneapolis, the source of possible problem is
> > advertisement of shared addreses, not unique ones.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "confined AS local".

You wrote:

  unicast address associated with the root name server.  The other
  interface, referred to as the AS-internal interface below, should
  use a distinct address specific to that host.  The host should

There is no reason to make host specific, globally unique,
address AS local.

It actually is harmful only to disable inter-AS zone transfer.

> If your question
> is "Why should the shared-unicast addresses have a single origin AS?",

Wrong question.

> then the answer is rfc 1930, section 7.  If the question is why should
> they have a single administrative point of contact, then the answer is
> that it is considerably easier for those using the servers, as they
> don't have to figure out which box is misbehaving before reporting a
> problem.  This was a point Randy Bush made very strongly in
> Minneapolis.  

I'm afraid you are not familiar with internet routing with BGP
and ASes nor its associated problems.

With your proposal, there are multiple ASes sharing the same
IP address ranges.

Your proposal does not make the shared address have a single origin.

That a host can reach only a single host among many sharing the
same address is of course regardless of whatever proposal you
make (unless you say multicast), which does not mean there is
only a single AS using the IP address.

To your surprise, it is OK to have multiple ASes sharing the same
IP address ranges.

As I don't think it worth to repeat the past discussion, see the
mailing list archive after it is restored.

							Masataka Ohta