[83123] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /8 end user assignment?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Fri Aug 5 05:44:01 2005
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 02:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
To: Bruce Campbell <bc-nanog@vicious.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.61.0508051122110.1232@zerlargal.zerlargal.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Bruce Campbell wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>>> could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
>>> volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
>
>> Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be load
>> balanced by putting a good number of AAAA records in the DNS?
>
> _Eventually_, DNS packet size and a desire to avoid truncation at that level
> would stop you. Nothing stopping you from having say 4 As and 3 AAAAs
> attached to one www record though.
>
> Personally, I think that having two AAAA records will hold you in place for
> long enough that vendors will catch up with decent AAAA load balancing
> support, unless of course you get hit by the mythical IPv6 killer app in the
> meantime.
Assuming that the mythical v6 killer app requires the use of the dns at
all...
distributed p2p overlay networks don't make much use of the dns now for
service and resource location, it's seems likely that they won't on v6
either.
> --==--
> Bruce.
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu
GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
