> Ralf Weber <mailto:d...@fl1ger.de> > Sunday, November 09, 2014 3:30 PM > Moin! > > 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?
because right now the people who do this have to pirate the address space of root name servers, and they have to do it for all of our addresses. under this proposal, there would be no piracy required, and there would only be two address blocks per stack (two for v4, two for v6) to do it for. see: http://ss.vix.su/~vixie/alternate-rootism.pdf > 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)? that rather begs the question, don't you think? i saw warren's draft after i wrote the section of the ICANN ITI report that covered this topic, but before we wrote the internet draft on the same topic. if you want to know "why is this better, or why is it still or also nec'y, or why do we need both?" then you should ask that. see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-21feb14-en.pdf (page 25) > Sorry for what may be stupid questions, but I am still trying to > understand your proposal and the motivation behind it. > as i wrote to john, the editorial quality of the draft is apparently quite low, given how much it has been misunderstood. hopefully the circleid article helps. see: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141107_secure_unowned_hierarchical_anycast_root_name_service_and_apologia/ -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
