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.