[as112-ops] RFC4193 section 4.4

[William F. Maton]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:

> I wouldn't mind seeing for example these zones added:

+1.  I don't mind the load to the local AS112 node here and OttIX attracts 
all sorts of connections due to the local 6to4 node.

> Can we easily make the servers in 192.175.48.0/24 serve these?
> Would it really matter if half of them were lame delegations?
> Should we add AAAA records for blackhole-1 and blackhole-2?

IANA would have to delegate this to AS112, which IIRC (Joe or someone 
correct me if I am wrong) means creating the I-D to ask that IANA delegate 
these through some instructions laid out by the IAB - Just going by RFC 
3152's example.

> Or should we create another anycast subnet with blackholes 3 and 4?
> The same ASN could still be reused for it.

We had talked about adding AAAA a few years back but decided against 
revising the AS112 drafts because they had or were on the verge of going 
WGLC and we didn't want to scuttle the process at that point.

It also means someone has to make a request to one of the registries for 
an IPv6 micro-allocation for infrastructure and that someone would 
presumably pick up the bill for.  I think Paul Vixie once mentioned 
to me that was part of the reason for DNS-OARC's existence:  Someone has 
to be the paper administrator for this.

Regarding blackhole-3 and -4, I think I can see in my mind's eye how this 
would get around some AS112 nodes not having IPv6 connectivity (those that 
did would announce the IPv6 prefix assigned only to 3 & 4) but I wonder if 
this would not fragment the load amonst AS112.  Then again, what's a few 
thousand qps? :-)

wfms