Re: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?

[John Curran <jcurran () mail com>]

At 4:47 PM -0400 9/17/07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com> wrote:
> > On 17-sep-2007, at 19:06, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> > > Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
> > > about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
> > > was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
> > > interface segregated.
> >
> > For debugging purposes, it's always good to have
> > blah.ipvX.example.com, but the real question is: do you feel
> > comfortable adding AAAA records to your production domain names?
> > Although I've been running that way for years and I've had only one
> > or two complaints during that time, I can see how someone could be
> > worried about reduced performance over IPv6 (it's still slower than
> > IPv4 a lot of the time because of tunnel detours etc) or even
> > timeouts when advertised IPv6 connectivity doesn't work for someone,
> > such as a Vista user with a public IPv4 address behind a firewall
> > that blocks protocol 41.
> >
> > Then again, I'm guessing that few people type www.ipv6.google.com
> > rather than www.google.com. And with stuff like mail, where you set
> > up the server names once and forget about it, it's even worse.
>
>
> I see. There isn't really an answer. :-) That's what I am getting at.
> Not to suggest that this is your responsibility, it's not - it's ours.
>
> For now, I'm going to try the unique A/AAAA and segregate the answers
> by protocol and sub domain the v4 traffic since it's a migration "to"
> v6.
>
>
> -M<