[131314] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?UTF-8?B?UmU6IEZhaWxvdmVyIElQdjYgd2l0aCBtdWx0aXBsZSBQQSBwcmVmaXg=?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Oct 21 22:46:01 2010
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:45:37 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14C424@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/21/2010 9:32 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
> But they sometimes don't check to make sure there aren't stale DNS entr=
ies for their hostname before they add the new one! I have run into that=
problem often. A machine that has been "bounced" several times recently=
might have a dozen A records for its hostname in DNS. I won't mention a=
ny names but their initials are MICROSOFT. For many of our machines, the=
re are load balancers, even in the office data center with hard coded IP =
addresses for the backend servers. Dynamic address assignment isn't real=
ly an option but works fine for things like user machines in the cubes. =
You aren't going to be looking those up by A record anyway. Static assign=
ment by DHCP is possible for the devices that do that, you just have to r=
emember to change it if you change a NIC (or if the interfaces are bound =
together on the box, such as with linux bonding, the "master" interface o=
f the bond changes for some reason like a failure of the previous master)=
=2E Static hard coding of the IP address is actually easier to manage in=
the colo than DHCP or autoconfiguration.
>
Many of these problems are application/implementation issues. Many=20
devices need support for dynamic prefix specifications "hey, my=20
destination for the load balancer is $prefix:blah", and some devices=20
still need support for just setting their IP with RA (though all my=20
servers do it fine).
At this time, there are many situations where static assignment is=20
probably the only option. Multiple assignments may not be out of the=20
question. However, this is due to the shortage of what IPv6 *could* be.=20
We are missing so many support protocols and applications that could=20
truly make it far superior to IPv4. Then again, I think SCTP is superior =
to udp/tcp, and I don't think I have a single app using it.
Jack
