nanog mailing list archives
Re: Question to Google
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer () nic fr>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 14:43:59 +0200
Unfortunately, every time we've looked at the data, the conclusion has been that it would cause unwarranted user impact. IIRC the most recent blocker was a major US ISP whose clients would experience breakage if even just one NS record was dual-stacked.
There are many zones (including your isc.org) that have several name servers dual-stacked, and they didn't notice a problem. Furthermore, since the DNS is a tree, resolution of google.com requires a proper resolution of the root and .com, both having IPv6 name servers. So, this answer is at least insufficient.
Current thread:
- Question to Google Marco Davids (Private) (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Mark Andrews (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Mark Andrews (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Todd Underwood (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Matt Mathis via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Todd Underwood (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Bjørn Mork (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Damian Menscher via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Mark Andrews (May 15)