[dns-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 glue AAAA RRs in the root zone

>>>>> "Jeroen" == Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> writes:

    >> Wrong, several root name servers (of course, not ICANN's one)
    >> are reachable over IPv6: read http://www.root-servers.org/
    >> and edit your db.root.

    Jeroen> I know those addresses and I also know that all of those
    Jeroen> boxes have a latency over at least 200ms and very odd
    Jeroen> routability and those are far far far from to be called
    Jeroen> production.

This could be a good topic for presenting to the WG. Want to volunteer
to write up a document and/or presentation on the state of IPv6
deployment in the root and TLD name servers, routing anomalies, etc,
etc? It would be good to hear someone's first-hand experiences with
this stuff: what went wrong, how it was worked around or solved, what
could be done better, future directions.

Personally, I don't see why you care about the RTT to a root server. A
well-behaved name server will make 4-5 queries to a root server once a
week or so. Why optimise that? Please note I'm not suggesting that
it's OK for root servers to have lousy RTTs. My name server is in
regular, frequent contact with other name servers that have RTTs
longer than 200ms.

    Jeroen> One really doesn't want to use those, just to be able to
    Jeroen> say that one can use IPv6....

Well, what other choice is there? :-) And anyway, since the overwhelming
bulk of the world's name servers are IPv4-only, resolution over IPv6
doesn't seem to be a particularly productive exercise.

    Jeroen> BTW that list is missing i.root-servers.org which is
    Jeroen> located in Sweden, but that is a testing address and
    Jeroen> routes over the US instead of staying inside Europe...

Why does it matter where a root name server is physically located?
Sorry, I should rephrase that: why does it matter where a route for a
root name server gets announced?

IMO a 200ms RTT over IPv6 has to be better than an infinite RTT.