[as112-ops] AS112 evolution (responses to multiple recent messages)

[Aleksi Suhonen]

Good morning,

I read through the messages of last night and some questions popped up 
some of which couldn't really be formed without quoting text from 
multiple messages together, so ... I hope it's not tl;dr.

On 12/29/10 16:06, William F. Maton wrote:
> 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? :-)

Due to the anycast nature of the service, not all AS112 nodes have to 
have both IP versions enabled. Traffic will flow to the closest 
IPv4-AS112 node and the closest IPv6-AS112 node, but they may be in 
different places. This will of course mean that you'd have to ask for 
"hostname.as112.net" using a specific adderss family, but that's 
basically true today as well.



He also wrote:
 > I've got the seed of an I-D forming in my head, but I also remember
 > from dnsop discussions some ways back of a desire by some to see some
 > domain name junk go AS112's way as well, but this I realize is getting
 > beyond scope.

and:
 > 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.

IMHO, we should get as much into the next draft as possible, since it's 
such a cumbersome process. If some of it is opposed terribly then we can 
strip that something out during the process. Adding stuff later will 
just set back the process.


Paul Vixie wrote:
 > you're welcome to leverage my old metazones idea as a way to ensure
 > that the next set of anycast servers is centrally controllable as to
 > what set of zones they serve, so that we don't have to add new
 > servers every time we add new zones as our only way to avoid lameness
 > and repeat-fallback.

Could we make an empty zone (empty.as112.net) and use some 
BNAME/CNAME/DNAME tricks to point any arbitrary blackholeables there?



Paul Vixie also wrote:
 > what i don't know is how IANA would respond to a request to add
 > blackhole-3 and blackhole-4 to IANA.ORG, or how IANA would respond
 > to a request to add delegations for junk zones inside ip6.arpa.

and:
 > for example we've launched DNS-OARC and put these resources under
 > DNS-OARC control.

Could we put the new blackholes under dns-oarc.net instead of iana.org?
Or as112.net for that matter ...

We could also eventually phase out blackholes 1 and 2 by moving the 
current AS112 delegations to the promising new blackholes too, thus 
reducing fragmentation. Some AS112 nodes that are running on autopilot 
will be rendered redundant, but at least they won't cause troubles. Once 
those are wound down, we could return 192.175.48.0/24 as unused...
But I guess I'm getting ahead of myself now. Disregard this for now.

-- 
	+358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX  Tampere Region Exchange Oy