[as112-ops] IPv6 network block for AS112 and experiments

[William F. Maton]

(Catching up on a lot of email, so here's a nice-sized reply...)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Clement Cavadore wrote:

> I started announcing it from our AS112 node (and configured our DNS
> server to be authoritative on the listed zones).
> Hope it's not too early ? If so, let me know, and we will stop the BGP
> session waiting for your go.

Clement:  I don't think it's any harm, as it will be interesting to see to 
which path the IPv6 traffic settles on for its destination. :-)

It might be a useful exercise to map out where the traffic borderlines are 
with the two nodes currently reachable via IPv6.  I had forgotten that one 
of the IPv6 upstreams for my node is CANARIE, which then went off and get 
free IPv6 transit for itself and downstreams, so I only expected to get as 
far as the research networks.

The DNS-OARC presnetation from a couple of years ago about locating AS112 
nodes had a couple of slides that demonstrated odd paths and why having 
more AS112 nodes closer to their bad-boy sources is a bonus.

My point in advertising the IPv6 route was to see if:

a) anyone noticed (looks like they did not)
b) how far I could push the /48 into the current IPv6 Internet

I want to thank everyone for their feedback on the AS ditance the path 
travelled.  I'll be updating the as112.net web pages as well based on 
feedback on the format of one of the examples.

Aleksi:  I've had a chance to read "Subject: [as112-ops] Extensible AS112 
Service".  I've not used DNAME myself before so I can't comment on it 
except to say that it seems to be under re-consideration in DNSEXT at the 
IETF (rfc2672bis if I remember right...).

But that leads to another issue.  Joe Abley put it very well in a recent 
post to DNSOP that there lies an opportunity to clean up RFC 6304 
(yes, the two AS112 drafts are now RFCs as of last night) in terms of:

- utilizing the registry created by RFC 6303

- creating the mechanism that tells AS112 nodes/operators that the
   registry has been updated, therefore the nodes should/shall follow

- then there's the long-running question of junk TLDs, like .local.

Aleksi, could you please re-propose to DNSOP what you suggested on this 
mailing list to leverage the collective wisdom there to see if using DNAME 
is a viable solution?  Just refer to either my I-D or George's so they 
know what it's about.  The IETF meeting is just a couple of weeks from 
now.

All that to say that there may be either an rfc6304bis the may evolve from 
this as a new doc replacing the old one or just a simple update.

BTW, I added Stephane Bortzmeyer's excellent write-ups as links from 
http://as112.net/ - of course in French. :-)

Thanks,

wfms