[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[2 mails into one again]

Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning at ISI.EDU] wrote:

> % Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
> % the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
> % anything smaller than that.
> 
> 	This, if it happens, will be exactly opposed to 
> 	the IPv6 design goal, which was to discourage/prohibit
> 	hardware/software designers from making presumptions or
> 	assumptions about the size of prefixes and HARDCODING them
> 	into products.

Good point. With current allocation schemes it should work but
maybe in the future, for anything outside 2000::/3 it could
indeed change and then the above could indeed break.

Hope the implementators of routing engines did notice that
unlike what I did :)

> % > Root nameservers are a very different story of course...
> % 
> % A /32 contains 65k /48's, so these IX blocks could provide for
> % enough /48's for 65k IX's, thus unless that switch at the back
> % of my desk, which connects 'neighbours' too is to be called an
> % IX, because they have a linux router and me too and they speak
> % BGP is going to be called an IX it shouldn't be a problem if
> % the same block is used for 26? and maybe 3 tld servers per country.
> % 
> % At least everybody will know that that /32 will have more specifics.
> % 
> % Greets,
> %  Jeroen
> 
> 
> 	2001:0478:: was delegated expressly for IX and core infrastructure.

- - is this documented somewhere?
  (google on the prefix only returns discussions about it's use ;)

- - is it available to the world(tm) as it looks like this is only
  available for exchanges managed by EP as per http://www.ep.net/wtgipa.html
  Thus also to the RIPE/APNIC/LACNIC region ?
  Regionalizing a root-server shouldn't be the case anyways as it
  shouldn't be bound to a certain spot.

I, personally, see absolutely no problem into making it the 'critical infra'
or 'root server' prefix, when it is documented correctly. EP.NET acts as
a neutral body, with this way kinda of a sub-RIR though. All root-servers
should be using the space then btw, not a few, but all of them.
Exceptions to the rule will only cause that the exceptions are forgotten
or that the rule is bent to badly that the rule isn't in place anymore.

> 	Thats where at least one of the IPv6 prefixes for root-servers
> 	exists.  Two are from ARIN micro-allocations and there is a
> 	/32 for another server.

Grepping on root+dns in http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/

2001:7fd::/32      K-rootserver-net-20030829 (not seen)
2001:7fe::/32      I-rootserver-net-20030916 (seen per 2003-09-17)
2001:dc0::/32      APNIC-AP-V6-20030124      *
2001:dc3::/32      M-ROOT-DNS-IPv6-20030619  (seen per 2003-08-31)
2001:dc4::/32      jp-dns-JPNIC-JP-20031117  (seen per 2003-12-03)

* = 2001:dc0::/35 + 2001:dc0:2000::/35 are announced, not the /32

The ARIN microallocs are not in there as they are not TLA's.
Should I start tracking those too with GRH?

Btw currently seen in the routing table (as per GRH)
2001:478::/32 (from SPRINT / AS6175)
2001:478::/45  (from EP.NET / AS4555)
2001:478:65::/48 (from EP.NET / AS4555)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen at unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP9UjUymqKFIzPnwjEQJ/1wCcCdLq3LSE+0DZBr6TvRh/APRR7K4AoIyg
Kh9IVDhzyle40AT6c4s0xH0b
=ybSi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----