IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region

At 8:08 -0400 23/4/02, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>"DOES" would probably be most appropriate, as it works in theory and has
>been shown to work in practice

For BIND versions that support IPv6 that is true. I am not sure about 
other DNS server software and every day there are more, which is a 
good thing(tm).

>
>>  If a root server were to move and a change of address was required, it
>>  might be a good idea not to have another name server at the same address,
>>  or if you have one, let it be something that would be helping towards a
>>  smooth transition.
>
>yup.  it's called prudent operation.  it's not like we have not been here
>before and don't have the coffee mug.  people should also not announce bogus
>routes to the root servers.  so, should we hard-wire the routes into the
>routers?

Sure, if it is your router you can do whatever you want with it. I am 
told that just behind the upcoming RIPE meeting's venue there are 
some fine artists specialised in etching with different colours of 
ink and some electrical needles.

Seriously now. I strongly believe that if a root server were to stop 
operations, it would be in everyone's benefit that either the address 
space where it is hosted moves with it OR **the address space which 
it was using is returned**

I do not want to find out that my name server is using an old 
address, which replies with a hints file that might not be the one I 
expect.
For the return/blockage/tagging to be operationally feasible, no 
unrelated services can ride on that address space.

Joao