> Evan Hunt <mailto:e...@isc.org> > Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:11 PM > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:14:44PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > ... For the record, I'm not comfortable with the Lee/Vixie proposal > that new root server addresses be globally routable and anycasted by > anyone who wants to, but I'd be fine with it if they were localhost > addresses, as above, or reserved nonroutable addresses similar to (but > distinct from) RFC 1918 addresses. I also think Kumari/Hoffman has > most of the same benefits at lower cost.
the vixie/lee proposal requires global routing in order to support cooperating rdns operators independent of their topology. a correct rdns configuration must remain correct even if transplanted to a different part of the topology. in other words the expectation of global reachability of the unowned anycast prefixes is not merely non-accidental, but actually quite deliberate and vital. i don't know how to answer your discomfort. as you know i was responsible for f-root's anycast growth for many years; as you may not know i was responsible for as112's early growth after a bill manning experiment succeeded. i am now a member of the c-root team. i've been watching anycast of infrastructure services, both owned and unowned anycast, for about 15 years. i do not share, nor do i understand, your discomfort. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
