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

On 9 Dec, 2003, at 2:20, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> -----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.


No, no and definitely no!!!

It is one thing to put all IXP prefixes in the same block, after all it 
does not matter if they are not seen in the global Internet as, in 
fact, they should not be visible.

However, putting public infrastructure all in the same prefix is about 
the worst idea I have heard in some time. One hiccup would kill them 
all at the same time.

Joao Damas
ISC