[118541] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 23 00:07:29 2009
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AE0F223.3050000@coders.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:00:11 -0700
To: Perry Lorier <perry@coders.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Perry Lorier wrote:
> trejrco@gmail.com wrote:
>> WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
>>
> You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
> load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using <prefix>:FFFF::1
> I personally would suggest getting a well known ULA-C allocation
> assigned to IANA, then use <prefix>::<protocol assignment>:1
> <prefix>::<protocol assignment>:2 and <prefix>::<protocol
> assignment>:3, where <protocol assignment> could be "0035" for DNS,
> and "007b" for NTP, and if you're feeling adventurous you could use
> "0019" for outgoing SMTP relay.
>
I thought ULA-C was dead... Did someone resurrect this unfortunate bad
idea?
>
>
>> ... Heck, start a registry (@IANA) and add in FD00::101, etc. ...
>> Maybe reserve FD00::/96 for this type of "ULA port-based anycast
>> allocation". (16bits would only reach 9999 w/o hex-conversion (if
>> hex-converted could reserve FD00::/112 ... But would be less
>> obvious))
>>
>>
>> Easily identified, not globally routable, can be pre-programmed in
>> implementations/applications ... ?
>>
>>
>
> Exactly, seems easy, straight forward, robust, reliable and allows
> for things like fate sharing and fail over.
Why pull this out of ULA? Why not pull it out of 0000/16 or one of
the other reserved prefixes?
Owen
