Re: v6 gluelessness

["Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow () gmail com>]

On Jan 22, 2008 2:11 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com> wrote:
> I'm quite unhappy about the trend to put everything in their own
> blocks that happen to be the longest possible prefixes. This means
> that one oversight in prefix length filtering can take out huge
> numbers of important nameservers.

and you have a giant confluence of number resource management and
operational practices here  as well.

> We really need as much diversity as we can get for this kind of stuff.
> There is no one single best practice for any of this.

For roots? TLD? ccTLD? (is there a potential difference between the
TLD types?)  Is diversity in numbers of networks and numbers of
locations per entity good enough? (.iq served out of US, Iraq, AMS on
3 different netblocks by 3 different operators ideally serviced by a
central controlling gov't entity... wait .iq changed... use .co as the
example)

Is, for lack of a quicker example: .iq 'good' or could they improve by
 shifting their NS hosts to blocks outside the /16 194.117.0.0/16? or
does it matter at all because they have each announced as a /24 with
no covering route?? (so if someone fudged a /24 max prefix length
filter to /23 they'd be broken either way?)

Some of this is covered in rfc2182 anyway, right?

-Chris