To:
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Havard Eidnes <he@runit.no>, seamus@bit-net.com, users@ipv6.org, dnsop@cafax.se, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@wasabisystems.com>
Date:
20 Jan 2001 05:08:39 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Keith Moore's message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:18:10 -0500"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> writes: > regarding the new root servers which respond to queries over IPv6 - > one thing you didn't quite mention, but I suspect is necessary, is > that their IPv6 addresses be stable. that is, that once root > servers are established at these addresses and are advertised, > that there will continue to be authoritative root servers at > those addresses for the forseeable future. > > this has implications for the roots; but perhaps also, for their > ISPs and for address assignment in general. regardless of what > assumptions we make about IPv6 renumbering elsewhere, we don't > want to renumber the root servers very often. It has occurred to me for some time that we should be willing to supply host routes for the root servers in the default free zone. We're only talking about a tiny number of servers, and it is the only service for which this is necessary. Yes, it would end up adding a dozen extra routes to the tables, but I think that in general it is probably the right way to go. Anyone else have thoughts on that notion? Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@wasabisystems.com -- Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/