IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers in the RIPE region

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:38:31PM +0200, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:10:51PM +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
> | At 15:02 +0200 24/4/02, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> | >Hi Joao, and other engineers,
> | >
> | >When deploying a set of root DNS servers, I think it is a good idea to
> | >allocate some chunk of space (say a /32 or /31) and assign each nameserver
> | >that we use in the RIPE region one aggregatable /35. The other RIRs can
> | >do the same thing resulting in 24 to 48 TLAs which we can then stick
> | >onto root nameservers.
> | 
> | I am not sure I understand this paragraph. Are you suggesting that 
> | the address blocks where the different root servers reside should be 
> | aggregatable into one superblock? I hope not.
> 
> I did not say that these should be combined into one aggregatable block 
> at all. I said that if we were to allocate a /32 for use of DNS root 
> nameservers, that we would have 8 /35s herein, and 16 /35s if we were to 
> allocate a /31 for the use of DNS. All three RIRs would then have 24 or 48 
> of these /35 TLAs respectively.

I would prefer if IANA, rather than RIRs, assigns TLAs for root nameservers.
That will make transfering root nameserver between regions easier. Root
nameservers are something related to whole Internet, thus we shall not
divide it between regions.

> By the way, some paragraphs down the line I actually DID propose to
> create an administrative hierarchy based on /48 aggregates but I fully
> realise that his is going out on a limb. I think however, that if we
> were to use 'n' TLAs for nameservers, that I would prefer to see 'n'
> /48s in my routing table than 'n' /35s, this of course from the
> conservation point of view.

That would require additional filter rules. I think that allowed size of
announced prefixes should be some range and we shall not partition IPv6
address space in many parts with different allowed prefix lengths. More
filter rules == higher CPU usage.

> The same holds for Internet Exchanges. Perhaps for other sites as well.
> How do we plan to have AMS-IX reachable from networks that do not peer
> with AS1200, if the AMS-IX is assigned only a /48 ? I see two
> possibilities (obvious ones, that is).
> 1. Allocate /35 to AMS-IX and let it announce that from AS1200
I agree with this one.

> 2. Make global policy to have 2001:7f8::/32 prefixlen 48 and lower
> allowable.
See above.


Regards,

-- 
Jan Oravec
project coordinator
XS26 - 'Access to IPv6'  
http://www.xs26.net
jan.oravec at xs26.net