Consensus on MHAP/v6 Multi-homing

[marcelo bagnulo braun]

El 20/04/2005, a las 17:56, Jeroen Massar escribió:

> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 17:31 +0200, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>> El 20/04/2005, a las 17:14, Jeroen Massar escribió:
>
>> agree
>> but i guess that DNS servers won't be using shim to obtain multihoming
>> support, but they will use the DNS protocol redundancy features 
>> instead
>> (multiple records with the different addresses available for the
>> server) (besides, doesn't make much sense to run a 4 way handshake to
>> exchange a single packet DNS query i guess)
>
> The whole goal of multihoming is being independent of upstream address
> space isn't it ?
>

not really, at least that is not what is included in the RFC 3582.
The goals of multihoming are basically redundancy and traffic 
engineering mainly... (most of all redundancy w.r.t different types of 
outages)

PI is a different issue, i guess


> Scenario, we are example.com and have 2 upstreams, thus 2x /48 and 
> those
> are 2001:db8::/32 from the IPv6-Doc prefix and 3ffe:ffff::/48 out of 
> the
> 6bone test/play/doc prefix. We have our example.com domain, where our
> web&smtp&etc-server resides at our shim6'd addresses.

sorry, what is a shim6 address?
As i understand it, any prefix can be used in shim...

>  We can't shim6 our
> DNS/shim6-directory server because of cyclic redundancy, thus we have 
> in
> DNS:
>
> ns1.example.com AAAA 2001:0db8::53
> ns1.example.com AAAA 3ffe:ffff::53
>

agree
but i fail to see the reasoning below... perhaps is that we do not have 
the same idea about what is the shim, perhaps?

regards, marcelo

> It is 6/6/6 and major ISP's filter out 3ffe::/16. Thus one out of two
> first-query attempts go into oblivion and that is only for contacting
> DNS. When we want to update* the above we need to contact the registrar
> etc. Fortunately for some domains there is a 5 minute or so time, but
> then still you have cached entries etc.
>
> If people would rely on DNS to be so quick, then they could also do 
> that
> for everything else, webservers etc.
>
> Not even mentioning outsourced DNS servers, or having customers 
> hardcode
> the DNS servers, eg ns1.example.org AAAA 2001:0db8::53, CNAMEs are not
> allowed and they love their own name.
>
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>
> * = Can't we organize a 'kick the .org/.com/.net registrars' event so
> that they will start accepting AAAA entries for NS's?
>