[109516] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 routing /48s
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Wed Nov 26 16:01:47 2008
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:00:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20081126002425.GO78345@burnout.tpb.net> (Niels Bakker's message
of "Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:24:25 +0100")
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* Niels Bakker:
> * alh-ietf@tndh.net (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
>> In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put up
>> a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and populate DNS with
>> both. Longest match will cause 2001:: connected systems to chose that dst,
>> while 6to4 connected systems will chose 2002:: as the dst. There is no need
>
> Huh? Longest match done by web browsers and other applications?
> Since when?
It's been part of GNU libc for a while, but it has been disabled by
several distributions. Usually, random selection leads to better
results. At they very least, it makes renumbering much simpler
because all addresses are equal, independently of where your clients
are located.
It's been a PITA to get this resolved (both in the IETF and in
implementations), and it's still not done AFAIK.
