[as112-ops] Section 4.4 of RFC 4193 and AS112

[William F. Maton Sotomayor]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:

> i think ULA is a stupid idea, as those of you on ppml@ know.  but if it
> passes through the ietf then AS112 definitely ought to serve it up.  i'd
> be happier to see the old site-local prefix used, so that private networks
> can be ambiguous like they are in IPv4.  so perhaps AS112 ought to serve
> up the site-local in-addr prefix also, just in case somebody uses it.

That's just it.  In case it should come to pass that someone uses it.

How does AS112 get the delegations?

>> There's also the issue of whether or not AS112 servers should get an IPv6
>> address for anycast purposes, i.e. getting AS112 onto IPv6 infrastructure
>> where available and answering on IPv6 sockets.
>
> i think this is a very good idea.  any objection to me requesting a block
> from ARIN for this, using their /48 "critical infrastructure" policy?

None whatsoever.  It would be great.  Please and thanks.

>> Of course, if Marc's draft moves to RFC and DNS implementors follow it,
>
> haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaa ha ha HA!

Like I said. :-)

>
>> maybe the day will come that AS112 becomes obsolete...but I think it would
>> be a long time before we see AS112 traffic drop in proportion to people
>> moving to newer versions of DNS server software.
>
> i think AS112 will still see a minimum of 10K PPS in the year 2100.

I thought so...

wfms