IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:

>
>>>> WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
>>>>
>>> You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation  
>>> and load balancing reasons.  The draft suggested using  
>>> <prefix>:FFFF::1 I personally would suggest getting a well known  
>>> ULA-C allocation assigned to IANA, then use <prefix>::<protocol  
>>> assignment>:1 <prefix>::<protocol assignment>:2 and  
>>> <prefix>::<protocol assignment>:3, where <protocol assignment>  
>>> could be "0035" for DNS, and "007b" for NTP, and if you're feeling  
>>> adventurous you could use "0019" for outgoing SMTP relay.
>>>
>> I thought ULA-C was dead... Did someone resurrect this unfortunate  
>> bad idea?
>>
>
> I'm not sure, I've not checked for a pulse recently.  Last I looked  
> it seemed that there was ULA-L and ULA-C, and most people were  
> saying use ULA-L unless you needed ULA-C, ULA-C seemed like a good  
> fit for this, if it's been buried then sure ULA-L would fit the bill  
> just as well.
>
>>>>
>>>> Easily identified, not globally routable, can be pre-programmed  
>>>> in implementations/applications ... ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, seems easy, straight forward, robust, reliable and allows  
>>> for things like fate sharing and fail over.
>>
>> Why pull this out of ULA?  Why not pull it out of 0000/16 or one of  
>> the other reserved prefixes?
>
> With my proposal above it only requires a /96, seems silly to use up  
> an entire /16 on a /96 worth of bits.  It shouldn't come out of  
> 2000::/3 because that's globally routable and this is defined to sit  
> within locally scoped addressing.
>
No... You missed my point...

I was suggesting that 0000::/16 already had some assignments for stuff  
somewhat like this,
so, why not use more of that prefix to get a /96 for this...

e.g. ::/0 == default, ::1/128 == Loopback, etc.

Why not use 0000:ffff::/64 to assign these addresses as:

0000:ffff::<inst:ance>:<serv:ice>

That is a 32 bit instance number and 32 bit port number, using up just  
a /64.

I was not suggesting the entire /16 for this, the entire /16 there  
isn't available.

> I have no major thoughts either way as to exactly where the range  
> comes from other than it should be an easy to spot, and easy to type  
> range which suggests plenty of 0's :)

I figured 0000 was a good candidate since it's already partially in  
use for
reserved special addresses.

Owen