On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote: > On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses >>> are "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being >>> "golden" addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets >>> into root server operator politics... >> >> there are perfectly valid reasons why you might want to renumber >> one, > > Ignoring historical mistakes, what would they be?
gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would want to renumber of out 198.32.64.0/24... making them immutable pretty much insures that you'll then find a reason to do so. >> the current institutional heterogeneity has pretty good prospects >> for survivability. > > "Golden" addresses dedicated to root service (as opposed to 'owned' > by the root serving organization) means nothing regarding who is > operating servers behind those addresses. It does make it easier to > change who performs root service operation (hence the politics). There are plenty of cautionary tales to be told about well-known addresses. assuming that for the sake of the present that we forsake future flexibility then sure golden addresses are great. > Regards, -drc > >