nanog mailing list archives
RE: Geographic map of IPv6 availability
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:43:56 -0700
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 6/10/2007, at 3:18 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:<stuff> Given the above, I think there is no myth.. !That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting AAAA records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea. For example, due mainly to Vista's 6to4 tunnelling stuff (based on researching a random sample of users), I'd lose about 4% of visitors to my web-sites if I were to turn on AAAA records. For a transit provider, having an unreachable (or seemingly unreachable) web-site is a really bad idea.
So why didn't you put up a 6to4 router and put AAAA records in that pointed to the 6to4 prefix for those servers? Is the concept of multiple IPv6 addresses on the server really as scary as people make it out to be? After all by having an IPv4 and an IPv6 address you already have multiple addresses on the server, so what is one more? The entire finger-pointing fiasco between the infrastructure providers and the content providers has to stop. The content providers just have to ignore the lethargic infrastructure providers and tunnel over them. Tunneling IPv4 over voice is how we got around the lethargy before, so now the only difference is we are tunneling IPv6 over IPv4. I hear whining from content providers about how 6to4, or tunneling in general, is bad because the path is not predictable. They never stop to realize that they could avoid that problem by putting up their own tunnel endpoint and through the magic of DNS completely avoid the problem they are complaining about. The only reason clients will look for a public 6to4 relay is to find sites that insist on having a single IPv6 address from a formal RIR IPv6 assignment process. In the grand scheme of things the 6to4 prefix that would correspond to your 6to4 router is formally assigned, it is just through the IPv4 assignment process. In any case a 6to4 connected client will traverse the direct IPv4 path to the server's 6to4 router, so as I said earlier if content providers would just ignore the infrastructure and deploy their own 6to4 routers to tunnel over the top, we could move forward. Eventually the carriers will figure out that their customers have moved on without them, and they will grudgingly come to the party. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability, (continued)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Stephen Wilcox (Oct 05)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Nathan Ward (Oct 05)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Kevin Loch (Oct 05)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Kevin Day (Oct 05)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Stephen Wilcox (Oct 06)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Peter Dambier (Oct 06)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Joe Abley (Oct 06)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Stephen Wilcox (Oct 06)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Joe Abley (Oct 06)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Nathan Ward (Oct 05)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Stephen Wilcox (Oct 05)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Mark Prior (Oct 07)
- RE: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Tony Hain (Oct 11)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Kevin Loch (Oct 11)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Nathan Ward (Oct 11)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Martin Hannigan (Oct 14)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 14)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Oct 14)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Martin Hannigan (Oct 15)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Nathan Ward (Oct 15)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: Geographic map of IPv6 availability Mark Andrews (Oct 15)