North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Well, make sure you're taking into account ALL of these situations, as they all exist currently:On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry too much about this one.
1) We run the servers, DNS and connectivity for a website. Should be the easy case.
2) We run the DNS and connectivity for the site, but do not control the server at all. (No root access to the server, must rely on the customer to follow instructions to setup, can't be asking them to make changes.)
3) We run the server and connectivity, but do not have control of DNS. (Customer is using their registrar's DNS services)
4) We provide connectivity only. (Colocation. We have no control over DNS or what goes on inside the server)
5) We provide DNS services to an entire domain, and have no involvement in the actual connectivity of any services on the site. (EasyDNS, etc)
How can I, as a hypothetical hosting company, manage traffic engineering under all of these situations with shim6?
If we do not control the server itself, we're completely reliant on customers to "do the right thing". We can't ask them to change things on their end for traffic engineering(we change it too much, and it's not their problem). We can't trust that they won't modify their hosts' behavior in ways that would suit them.
If you're saying we don't need to rely on the server side at all to DTRT, the solution either has to come in on the DNS side (which we also don't always control, and takes too long to update) or additional functionality added to the router/firewall/load balancer/ something. I can't imagine that going over well with hosting/content companies either.
No matter how you look at this, the routing policy and routing decisions need to be made somewhere. There isn't any one point where a hosting company can do this where it's guaranteed they have control of it. If you're suggesting that this be changed, that's further raising the bar for IPv6 deployment. If people have to change their business models around a new addressing scheme, it's not going to be a very willing move.