On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>> Where does the assumption that the network
operators control the
>> DNS for the end hosts come from?
>
> ...or in another way. Don't worry too much about this
one.
Well, make sure you're taking into account ALL of these
situations,
as they all exist currently:
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.
-- Kevin
|
muada.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>> Where does the assumption that the network
operators control the
>> DNS for the end hosts come from?
>
> ...or in another way. Don't worry too much about this
one.
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the
IETF telling us to
"sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know
what's best". This
attitude combined with Shim6's (many) limitations speed it
toward
irrelevance.
--
Daniel Golding