Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>]

On 7-dec-03, at 20:52, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > Just for fun, I cooked up a named.root file with only those IPv6 
> > addresses
> > in it. This seems to confuse BIND such that its behavior becomes very
> > unpredictable.

> hmmm.  that configuration works fine for me here.

Ok... But does it also do anything useful? My understanding of what 
happens when a resolver starts is that it asks a root server for the 
list of root servers and then uses that list from then on. Since this 
list only contains IPv4 addresses currently that initial query is also 
the last one done over IPv6.

> >                   and the other as a /48 which are heavily filtered.

> not according to the RIR's.  at least in ARIN's case the 
> micro-allocation
> policy seems to have met with approval by the membership, which is why 
> we're
> using a /48 for f-root.  if this is a bad idea because all kinds of 
> ISP's
> won't be accepting such routes even though they seem to be grouped 
> together
> in a place where a different prefix filter could be employed, then you 
> ought
> to tell the RIR's this and get the microallocation policies altered or 
> torn
> down.

What I see is this:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html#minimum_allocation

which doesn't mention micro allocations and is newer than this:

http://www.arin.net/policy/2001_3.html

ARIN does maintain a list of individual micro allocations at 
http://www.arin.net/registration/ipv6/micro_alloc.html but they don't 
bother saying which address blocks future ones will be coming from.

I think this stuff is too important to leave up to individual RIRs.

> (i personally don't think a /35 route with just one host in it makes
> much sense,

Agree.