Re: Teredo server selection

[Nathan Ward <v6ops@daork.net>]

On 3/01/2008, at 3:24 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

> I fear that:
>
> - the politics involved in choosing a name will be tedious
> - there are potential root/ARPA/whatever server load considerations,  
> given the potential base of teredo clients
> - bootstrapping a network plumbing exercise using a DNS name sounds  
> like it has the potential to expose circular dependencies

The first two appear to be issues.
The latter should not be an issue, as existing Teredo clients use DNS  
names for server discovery.

I'm not convinced that there would be significant extra load on the  
root servers however - things like .local, .mshome, .workgroup, etc.  
would cause similar load, I expect.

> Given a well-known anycast address for Teredo (is there one?) I'm  
> not sure why the easy answer to this is to forget about the DNS and  
> just use the IP address. If sites want to keep the traffic local,  
> they can always arrange for traffic aimed at that address to be  
> delivered to a local host in their network.
>
> (I'll note that I've been on extended e-mail cold-turkey [ho, ho]  
> over the holidays, and may be missing some context in this thread.  
> If what I am saying makes no sense, please be gentle.)

There is not a well known IPv4 anycast address for Teredo servers to  
use at this time.

I'd like for there to be a DNS based solution to allow an operator to  
direct end users to a server based on whatever metrics they choose, as  
opposed to just the best IPv4 path. This would allow DNS round robin,  
for example.

My suggestion RE negative names was to work around potential political  
problems where having a globally available name would be a problem.  
Ie. having server.teredo.arpa. (or whatever) returning an A RR  
pointing to an anycasted address. Would the preference be to:
a) Have a well known globally available name, which returns an A RR  
pointing to the anycast address. Operators can 'overload' this.
     Benefit: Less load on the root servers, as positive caching is  
better.
     Drawback: Someone has to be authoritative. Can this be a  
function of [a subset of?] the root servers?
b) Have a well known name that is NOT globally available, which  
operators can optionally return an A RR for.
     Benefit: We don't have to be authoritative.
     Drawback: Potentially higher load on the root servers.
c) Do something else

A show of hands, with comments if you'd like, would be useful here.

--
Nathan Ward