Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> In message <BANLkTi=DGwuN_9xnBzq-ukdKxeYnuQ16Bw () mail gmail com>, Michael Dillon writes:
> > > The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or
> > > your own.
> >
> > It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and
> > other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a theme or focus for
> > each month. If you have a focus, then you can recruit a lot of IPv6
> > testers to try out certain things on IPv6 day and get a more thorough
> > test and more feedback
> >
> > Skip July and August because it takes time to get this organized, and
> > then start the next one on September the 8th or thereabouts.
> >
> > For instance, one month could focus on full IPv6 DNS support, but
> > maybe not right away. A nice easy start would be to deal with IPv6
> > peering and weird paths that result from tunnels. That is the kind of
> > thing that would work good with a lot of testers participating and an
> > application that traces IPv4 and IPv6 paths and measures hop count,
> > latency, packet loss.
> >
> > In conjunction with the monthly IPv6 day, NANOG should set up a blog
> > page or similar to publicly collect incident reports and solutions.
>
> I really don't know why anyone is worried about advertising AAAA
> records for authoritative nameservers.  It just works.  Recursive
> nameservers have been dealing with authoritative nameservers having
> IPv6 addresses for well over a decade now.  This includes dealing
> with them being unreachable.
>
> DNS/UDP is not like HTTP/TCP.  You don't have connect timeouts to
> worry about.  Recursive nameservers have much shorter timeouts as
> they need to deal with IPv4 nameservers not being reachable.  They
> also have to do all this re-trying within 3 or so seconds or else
> the stub clients will have timed out.
Ah, but, with IPv6 records, you are much more likely to end up with
a TRUNC result and a TCP query than with IPv4.

Owen