nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
From: Perry Lorier <perry () coders net>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:08:09 +1300
I thought ULA-C was dead... Did someone resurrect this unfortunate bad idea?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.WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
I'm not sure, I've not checked for a pulse recently. Last I looked it seemed that there was ULA-L and ULA-C, and most people were saying use ULA-L unless you needed ULA-C, ULA-C seemed like a good fit for this, if it's been buried then sure ULA-L would fit the bill just as well.
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?
With my proposal above it only requires a /96, seems silly to use up an entire /16 on a /96 worth of bits. It shouldn't come out of 2000::/3 because that's globally routable and this is defined to sit within locally scoped addressing.
I have no major thoughts either way as to exactly where the range comes from other than it should be an easy to spot, and easy to type range which suggests plenty of 0's :)
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN trejrco (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- RE: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast TJ (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Perry Lorier (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast TJ (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Chris Adams (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Perry Lorier (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN TJ (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN TJ (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Kevin Loch (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Andy Davidson (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Randy Bush (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Matthew Moyle-Croft (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Mark Smith (Oct 29)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Ray Soucy (Oct 18)