nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: John Curran <jcurran () mail com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:20:08 -0400
At 9:21 AM -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to use IPv6, it's getting their public-facing servers IPv6 reachable in addition to IPv4.Exactly. So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users connected via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the content is reachable. The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start by using different dns names for IPv6 enabled servers- mail.ipv6.yahoo.com or whatever. Can anyone think of a reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
There are already folks who have run separate hostnames for IPv6 services, and the fact that we can still exchange email on mailing lists (lots of email ;-) ) means that it doesn't seem to be a problem. The next phase of experimentation which needs some real-world experience is using both IPv4 and IPv6 to reach existing servers, to learn all about the various "does and doesn't work" scenarios that can be setup with/out IPv6 transit/tunnelling, with IPv4 only and IPv4/IPv6 DNS servers, and the resource record preference rules in various resolver and IP stacks... So, what I'm advocating for is getting servers on both IPv4 and IPv6 asap, and figuring out how to do it safely with the same DNS names. I'm not saying that a good starting step is running IPv6 internal to your own network with separate hostnames, but we all have to move past that pretty quickly. /John
Current thread:
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 30)
- 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Jeroen Massar (May 30)
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Mike Leber (May 30)
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Mike Leber (May 30)
- RE: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) James Jun (May 30)
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) virendra rode // (May 30)
- Re: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) bmanning (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Perry Lorier (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (May 30)
- dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Patrick W. Gilmore (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Donald Stahl (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Merike Kaeo (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack simon (May 31)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch (May 30)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Mark Tinka (May 29)