IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 31 May 2019 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B11120052 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQZkEmQ6JNrz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10805120104 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3443C38185; Fri, 31 May 2019 10:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 01396E0A; Fri, 31 May 2019 10:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F24DF2; Fri, 31 May 2019 10:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yY=z-wKCUaCYZqJLHfT+LdyDOWz9bLG8QTh9C8sJCx3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7A9560FC-0393-45DF-8389-B868455AC6DD@fugue.com> <20190530005734.7d2alod2zoaemmhc@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <D6E27B45-437F-45BE-A305-47DD460BCE02@fugue.com> <26144.1559226966@localhost> <1DD451A7-D898-4105-974C-53776A3DA9F2@fugue.com> <20190530152902.l2nmyhadr4e4kt7x@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0FF19D6D-1A45-41EF-BE34-CC35B5E51E1E@steffann.nl> <D91629F6-73AC-4A80-80EF-16644F73DA36@fugue.com> <701687d4-842c-6a16-3c97-349125324e3f@gmail.com> <D648647D-60E1-4DCE-B0BE-11002E0AE5A4@fugue.com> <20190530220838.g2hshonsjxmfnd55@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <632BE7EC-26A6-44E9-9CCD-F0AE143D4256@fugue.com> <AF1967FC-526D-47FB-98BE-F9B949F26796@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2yY=z-wKCUaCYZqJLHfT+LdyDOWz9bLG8QTh9C8sJCx3g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 10:26:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4491.1559312796@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-0t99PSfgB58FqE_YJ3BmSRd6iU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 14:26:48 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    > When I first ran up anycast DNS resolvers, I ideally wanted to use IPv4
    > addresses that had these property of globally unique, not globally
    > reachable, yet reachable from all customers' networks. Internet DoS attacks
    > on DNS resolvers were common at the time.

    > RFC1918 didn't suit, nor did normal RIR public address space, because APNIC
    > expected it to be globally reachable. IX space suites, but we weren't an
    > IX. We could have probably lobbied harder for it, however we needed to get
    > them going.


    > This is also part of my realisation that the forwarding scopes of our
    > unicast address spaces are quite coarse - global (GUA), organisation (ULA)
    > and link (Link-Local), and that's it.

If you are arguing for having another pool of address space, "unique,
non-global scope" or some such, then I'm all for it.

We didn't like site-local because they weren't unique.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email