[140789] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Conventions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu May 19 03:06:00 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <70BC8E23-FF41-4313-AB0C-234B6DCA78DA@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:05:43 +0200
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 19 mei 2011, at 5:21, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 2) Are we tending to use different IPs for each service on a device?
>> No, the same Internet Protocol.
> I believe he meant different IP addresses
No, that can't be, he would have said "IP addresses".
> and I highly recommend doing so.
> If you do so, then you can move services around and name things =
independent of
> the actual host that they happen to be on at the moment without having =
to renumber
> or rename.
The DNS is already a layer of indirection so in most cases this makes =
things harder first (having to remember which address is on which host) =
so they may be easier later (not touching the DNS when services go to a =
new box). In my opinion, this isn't a good tradeoff most of the time. =
Only if you want/need addresses to be a particular way (like short for =
DNS servers) that's helpful.
I was reluctant to do stateless autoconfig for servers at first but it's =
really rock solid, as long as you're reasonably sure no rogue router =
advertisements will show up on the subnet in question there's no reason =
to avoid it.=
