I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST
support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to
move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future
networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the
burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers.
If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or
do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a
fragile position.
IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of
the IETF.
Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server
operators who chose to ignore this MUST.
IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be
possible to even say so in the proposed document.
cheers!
~Carlos
On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.
I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload
among hardware.
Yes, that is my view as well.
Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
responders.
I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 be
answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
different locations.
I think that the current text captures this just fine:
Agreed.
Jari