nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:19:13 -0700
I concur that the problem is not a routing hardware problem. It's a perception problem with the various ISPs. I have fiber service with AT&T.
My little server farm endpoints all have IPv6 addresses, including the edge router. I also have a plan to allocate IPv6 addresses to my LAN devices, and to protect the LAN devices from outside interference by rules in the NFTABLES firewall that include connection tracking on outbound requests. (IPv4 will still use NAT to keep nefarious people from probing my internals.)
Specifically, when I was doing my mail server refresh (moving from Red Hat to Canonical) I decided it was time to offer IPv6 connectivity in the mail server to "future proof" my setup. That included adding AAAA records in my DNS zone files. Failure! The issues:
1. I learned that there are no "static addresses" in IPv6, as far as AT&T was concerned. By all appearances, though, the IPv6 /64 is relatively static, for now, similar to the way that early cable modem deployments kept the same IPv4 addresses. (Until the cable people started forcing changes on DHCP lease renewal, that is.)
2. My request for PTR records was denied, which means I can't satisfy Best Practices for a mail server in the IPv6 space. No PTR records, no redirection of ip6.apra space, nothing. I include AT&T's refusal below.
3. I don't know how to get an IPv6 allocation from ARIN, how to request AT&T to route it, or how to deal with the DNS server issues. Oh, I know how to configure BIND9; I would prefer using a 24/7/365 provider. For example, my master zone files are with Register.com, so if my circuit goes down the name resolution still happens. Register.com appears not to provide reverse-DNS PTR zone support (in6.arpa). A Google search turned up NOTHING for in6.arpa hosting.
That tells me that IPv6 is not "Internet Ready" for small users. Given the level of FU responses I get trying to work with it, I will stop banging my head against the wall.
So I stick with IPv4, because that will be the "standard" until the day I die, as far as I can tell.
(I removed the AAAA record, so as not to confuse mail server that DO operate IPv6.)
Subject: RE: Need IPv6 PTR record for my IPv6 mail server Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:52:53 +0000 From: Prov-DNS <prov-dns () att com> To: Prov-DNS <prov-dns () att com>, att () satchell net <att () satchell net>Hello We don't process DNS request on IPv6 addresses. We only process DNSrequest on IPv4 static assigned addresses. If you would like us to process a DNS request for you on a IPv4 address please provide the following information.IPv4 address you would like the record created for Host name you would > like that IP address pointed to
>
2.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.c.d.d.0.b.9.7.0.0.7.1.0.0.6.2.ip6.arpa. 0 IN PTR smtp.satchell.net.Thanks Michael AT&T Prov-DNS -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Satchell <att () satchell net> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 5:42 PM To: DNSUpdates cB <g12988 () att com> Subject: Need IPv6 PTR record for my IPv6 mail server Here is the record I need inserted into your ip6.arpa DNS zone:
This is the result from the question section of a dig(1) request for the PTR record for my IPv6 address 2600:1700:79b0:ddc0::32, and the fully-qualified domain name of the server.You can verify the information using dig smtp.satchell.net AAAA and checking the reverse.This is the only server in my collection that needs the IPv6 pointer.
Current thread:
- Re: if not v6, what?, (continued)
- Re: if not v6, what? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Carsten Bormann (Sep 04)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Andrews (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Levine (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Stephen Satchell (Sep 18)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Levine (Sep 19)