New Document available: RIPE-233

Randy, Joao,

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:52:40AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> Joao wrote:
> > Actually I think it makes much more operational sense to *not* put 
> > all the root name servers in one block.
> 
> agreed^2
> 
> if one believes this scenario, than each having its own normal sized
> (i.e. globally routable) block is the only method i can see.  [ unless
> we want to discuss the anycast path ]

I should have been more precise in my wording, I assumed that nobody
would even think of not having a globally routed block for each
server (except for the anycast model).

My suggestion should have been read as that I would prefer that these
routable blocks of address space come out of a larger address range
set aside for rootnameserver numbering purposes. One of the reasons
that people want their own address space for rootnameservers is that
it becomes easier to apply policy for the rootnameserver operator but
also for the users of the servers. Using one address range for all the
different routable blocks of rootnameserver address space makes it
easier to recognize that one deals with 'special' address space when
one sees such an address and it makes it easier to apply policies on
all these special addresses at once (if one desires so) instead of
dealing with a list of randomly choosen prefixes.

David K.
---