[ppml] Accommodating IPv6 Address RRs for the Root of the Domain Name System
martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs
Thu Mar 29 22:55:24 EDT 2007
> > 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
> 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
> > 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
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...?
More information about the ARIN-PPML