[dns-operations] 答复: L-Root IPv6 Address renumbering

Robert Edmonds edmonds at mycre.ws
Mon Mar 14 15:39:15 UTC 2016

Terry Manderson wrote:
> The operational "burden" is long tailed, and if you were thinking only
> about 1 server listening for tcp and udp on one extra address and
> maintaining 1 simple acl, then I think I would be with that. But it's
> simply not.
> L-root has some 140+ instances out there (not counting actual running
> servers) all with at minimum 1 upstream. An upstream that will need to be
> advised when we stop announcing the prefix, and all the trappings that go
> with that such as LOAs, ACLs, route filters, and so on.. Not even
> considering the infrastructure behind that to do stats collection and
> reporting. This project will take a long time as it is. It's not easy, and
> sometimes people put things like it into the too hard basket and from my
> perspective (warning, my opinion only!) we are left with a less concise
> root server system that ultimately can be targeted more easily affecting
> stability. (again, my opinion)

Hi, Terry:

I don't think anyone asked this in the thread, but can you talk about
what the underlying reason is for the re-numbering? Given all the
operational burdens mentioned above, it sounds like something that
wouldn't be considered lightly.

Robert Edmonds

More information about the dns-operations mailing list