nanog mailing list archives
Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site
From: Franck Martin <franck () genius com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:38:50 +1200 (MAGST)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell () ufp org> To: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Saturday, 24 April, 2010 7:33:21 AM Subject: Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site
In a message written on Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:08:30PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:No, the problems are probably further back in time. We first started turning up IPv6 back in 1997 or so. There's a *very* good chance that we turned it off a decade ago (or whenever people *first* started listing quad-A's in NS entries) due to breakage and never actually revisited it since then. This would have been in the era of early 6bone and "your IPv6 connection is probably tromboned through Tokyo".Back in that era there was a very real problem of islands. That is, a group would set up IPv6 internally but never connect to the "Internet" (however you want to define that). So they got a AAAA and blackholed trying to reach it. When you look at the content providers (Yahoo and Google tend to speak about this) they are very concerned about this problem as end users can make themselves islands fairly easily (an island of your house, for instance). While the numbers are troubling for them, they are actually really good news. Depending on who's number you believe and when somewhere between 0.01% and 0.5% of end users are on unconnected islands. Now, when you serve a billion page views a day, dropping 0.5% is a huge concern; but it actually means the island problem has gotten really small. More importantly, those are end users who are islands. Someone who's airport is misconfigured making them appear to have IPv6 when they do not. Most of these folks don't run recursive name servers. While I don't know of any hard data, I would expect the number of nameservers in islands to be at least one, and perhaps two or three orders of magnitude less. So, in the context of publishing AAAA's for your nameservers, I think things are extremely safe at this point. If the recursive box on the other end has IPv6 at all and tries to use the AAAA there is a very good chance it will have working IPv6. In the context of publshing AAAA's for your services (e.g. WWW), you need to look at the Google and Yahoo stats network wide, look at your own user base, and determine what level of breakage is acceptable. Keep in mind that IPv4 doesn't always work, so 0% is an unachieveable goal. :)
Well google will not serve you an AAAA record if you are not registered with them. This to avoid all the issues above. Once you are registered, expect lot of IPv6 traffic!
Current thread:
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site, (continued)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site John Payne (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Jim Burwell (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site John Jason Brzozowski (Apr 24)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Owen DeLong (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Mark Andrews (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Jared Mauch (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Brielle Bruns (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Leo Bicknell (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Franck Martin (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Jack Bates (Apr 24)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Stephen Sprunk (Apr 26)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Christopher Morrow (Apr 26)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Mark Andrews (Apr 26)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Joe Abley (Apr 28)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site joel jaeggli (Apr 30)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Kevin Buhr (Apr 24)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Owen DeLong (Apr 25)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Larry Sheldon (Apr 23)
- Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site Brielle Bruns (Apr 23)