[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: quietly....
- From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:41:38 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
> 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?
> > 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).
Exactly: it *centralizes control* over what the roots are.
The second- and third-order resultants of that observation will be left as
an exercise for the student; politics are off-topic for NANOG :-)