On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Perry Lorier wrote:
trej...@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
