[ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System

[Martin Hannigan]

> > What I want to know is what is going to happen to the
> > extra bytes in the V6 dns priming response? 
> > 
> > What is the procedure for me to apply for
> z.root-servers.net?
> 
> Ask ICANN (people,website, mailinglists).
> RIR's do (IP|AS) numbers, not (DNS) names.

This isn't ICANN's issue. ICANN executes policy. They don't
create it.

 
> > I'd like to see those bytes reserved for a "local
> > option", the option to run your own root in conjunction
> > with the 13 others. (no, not altroot)
> 
> If you want to run your own "root server" then simply
> alias the 13 IP addresses on one machine, inject /32
> routes for them into your IGP towards that machine and you
> are done. With a bit of trickery you can even use this box
> to forward the queries on to the real machines, but
> caching them locally.
> 
> The rest of the world doesn't have to be bothered how you
> run your local network.
> 
> But that is my personal opinion of course ;)

Well, of course! :-) 

But seriously, and I am being serious, there is some space
in the V6 response and there should be some innovation on
how that space is used. ICANN executes policy, not creates
it, so I fail to see the relevance of seeking some sort of
response there. There is no procedure for "adding" another
root server, but that's not relevant here. It's a naming
issue. 

I mentioned to someone that I thought perhaps we should put
the long/lat of the host in those bytes. Better yet, a local
option, "Z" (which was monikered by others) would make a lot
of sense. Why not include a local root with a corresponding
reserved addr in the packet since we have some space?

Trying to get back on to the policy topic, perhaps the
reserved addr could be carved out of...?  

-M<