On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:26:22PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > 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.
AS112 absolutely proves that unowned anycast can work at scale; that's not my concern. But if my neighbor announces a route to the AS112 addresses, and then misconfigures a server, fills it with lies, or logs all my queries, the practical effect on me is pretty small: the worst case scenario I can think of offhand is that somebody gleans information about my internal network topology that probably wouldn't have been difficult to guess anyway. I believe there's more scope for an incompetent or malicious root server operator to block, surveil, or deceive me, and while there are defenses I can deploy against some misbehaviors, I think we need to be cautious about about a potential increase in the number of bad actors and failure modes. While I don't particularly share Andrew's camel's-nose-on-the-slippery-slope concerns about a root zone with a modified NS rrset, if I were going to use it myself, it would *only* be because I was deploying a local root instance on my own network or on the local host. If I weren't going to deploy it myself, then I'd stick to the traditional roots. I may not be typical in that respect, but if I am, then there's no need for unowned anycast anyway. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
