[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:27:01PM +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> > 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.

They need a /128.  But experience has shown that BGP participants *do*
filter, and as such, it was decided to go for a /32 in RIPE land.  ARIN
does /48s.

> 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). 

This is the way it is done.

> 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.

BGP filters.

But hey, so what.  There are roughly 4 billion /32s - what do you gain 
by saving 10 /32s?  The number of routing table entries (which are a 
larger problem than "exhaustion of the available /32s") doesn't change.

> 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.

At the time the policy was written, people thought that this way would
be better.  On the subject of root servers, people tend to be conservative.

OTOH, no policy that can't be changed if people think otherwise today.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  71007  (66629)

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234