I need to clarify something here (thanks TM for spotting this). I didn't mean to say that the IETF should require all root server operators to provide anycast copies. I'd very much would like them to, but there yes, I don't think the IETF can/should require that. My comment about 'this requirement is well within...' was only intended to apply to the IPv6 issue. regards, ~Carlos On 29/05/2014 17:18, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > 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 >>