IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 30 May 2019 14:36 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 08BC312013C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 X_5xP5lW57WQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043DC12012E for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA283826E; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EEC6A1081; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED52DE0A; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
In-Reply-To: <D6E27B45-437F-45BE-A305-47DD460BCE02@fugue.com>
References: <D22E680C-3EE3-4AD7-90C0-9339DA2E5A29@fugue.com> <BN6PR21MB04978DB375C05CB3CE4C914EA31F0@BN6PR21MB0497.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <4EF97F31-1F39-4150-B044-955C46E96FB4@fugue.com> <20190530002833.wfvjfbj2lv2ig664@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7A9560FC-0393-45DF-8389-B868455AC6DD@fugue.com> <20190530005734.7d2alod2zoaemmhc@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <D6E27B45-437F-45BE-A305-47DD460BCE02@fugue.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: Thu, 30 May 2019 10:36:06 -0400
Message-ID: <26144.1559226966@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YfCG25rTYR8KvZRwcDCbztWKagI>
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: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:36:12 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > On May 29, 2019, at 5:57 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    >> Worst case, you float the idea to a single ULA prefix defined
    >> by your RFCs mecanism and see how reviewers like this. At least its
    >> a lot better than trying to define a "well known" rfc1918
    >> anycast address - because your application defined ULA
    >> prefix has a very low probability of colliding with somebodies
    >> actually used ULA prefix.

    > I think if it makes sense to do this, we should probably allocate a
    > prefix as Bob suggested, and then reserve that for this general
    > purpose.   I don’t think we should invent this scheme in a particular
    > document that’s being worked on in dnssd.  :)

I think if using the ULA space, that it should be allocated in ULA-"C" space.
It seems that we'd really be asking IANA to carve out a /48 out of ULA-C
space, give it a new name, and create a new IANA registry.
This leaves the rest of ULA-C space undefined, which is the current state.
I think that the IESG can approve such a thing.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email