and why not require anycast? if your going to meddle in other companies operations, be bold! /bill Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. On 29May2014Thursday, at 14:13, Carlos M. Martinez <carlosm3011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >>> >