This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jon Lawrence
jon at lawrence.org.uk
Thu Feb 24 22:27:01 CET 2005
On Thursday 24 February 2005 19:04, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was > > curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro > > allocation", it turns out: > > > > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > > contrary. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html > > "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server > (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be > assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server > operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the > minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the time > of the root server assignment." > > An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root > server operator IS the end user of the address space. > Yep, that makes sense. A root server operator would be an end user - can't imagine why they'd need more than a /48 though. It would make sense to me if root servers were assigned directly from RIPE (possibly from a special allocation set as side for the root servers' use). It seems completely pointless to allocate/assign a /32 to a root server. If the root server operator gets an assignment (directly from RIPE) why does it need to be the same size as a normal minimum allocation. Regardless of min allocation size - which ISP isn't going to allow an known root server IP through. If people want to filter then let them, if they don't know what they're doing then that's their look out. Root servers should be allocated/assigned (whatever) from a known block - that way everyone knows not to filter that block. Jon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]