Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>]

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn () mork no> wrote:
> The next thought was SMTP

I assume someone’s tried using MX record precedence to do this?  AAAA record references with lower values than A record 
references, and see what happens?  Anyone have any results to share there?

> and authoritative DNS servers.

If all currently-listed NS are dual-stack, I don’t know how much more would be gained by pruning them back to IPv6 
only, from an actual-change-in-the-world perspective.  Obviously it’s got to happen in the long run, will happen in the 
long run, and is the right thing to do, but I’m not sure that’s where our short-term tactical effort is going to have 
the most effect.

If there are currently IPv4-only nameservers, deprecating those, dual-stacking them, or replacing them with IPv6-only 
is a good move.

> Running IPv6 only in a real production environment should be possible as long as you keep IPv4 on at least one of the 
> servers.

Agreed, and in your internal environment you can go IPv6 only with NAT/gateway at the edge to reach legacy stuff on the 
outside.  That helps get your people used to IPv6-only, and demonstrates the benefits of less configuration, less 
worrying about IP address availability, etc.  If people don’t have a taste of how much easier it is, they don’t have a 
strong incentive to keep moving forward.

> But you don't have to look far before you hit snags like this:
> https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/vedlegg-f/

Ugh.  Policy from 2018.  Has anyone reached out to them to get this fixed?  .NO is one of the few ccTLDs we don’t have 
a relationship with.  Looks like they’re using NetNod and Neustar.

                                -Bill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP