Moin! > On 09 Nov 2014, at 15:10, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > we intend that iana craft a second root zone, published in parallel with the > existing one, each being synchronized in terms of tld content, and each > signed with the then-current iana signing key. > > the second one will only have two NS RR's at its apex, not thirteen. > > those two NS RR's will each point to one A and one AAAA, in disparite /24's > and /48's. so, four new routing slots will be consumed by this proposal. > > the networks having these new IPv4 and IPv6 addresses will be routed globally > by anyone who cares to, for example by the existing root name servers. > > they can also be routed non-globally by anyone who cares to, for example into > the loopback network of an RDNS server, or into a LAN via its exit gateway, > or into a campus or ISP or region using no-export routing advertisements. > > RDNS operators who want this "alternative IANA root zone" will have to change > their root hints, and will be strongly advised to only do this if they have > DNSSEC validation and root key rollover support. They can do this with today with the current root zone. AXFR it from a root server, serve it and point your root hints to it. Why do you want to complicate this? Wouldn't it be better to implement this loopback root zone in the RDNS software which is I think what Warren proposes (Haven't read the new draft yet)?
Sorry for what may be stupid questions, but I am still trying to understand your proposal and the motivation behind it. So long -Ralf --- Ralf Weber e: d...@fl1ger.de _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
