Re: No IPv6 by design to increase reliability...

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:46 AM John Von Essen <john () essenz com> wrote:

> I was having a debate with someone on this. Take a critical web site,
> say one where you want 100% global uptime, no potential issues with end
> users having connectivity or routing issues getting to your IP. Would it
> be advantageous to purposely not support a AAAA record in DNS and
> disable IPv6, only exist on IPv4?

No


> My argument against this was "Broken IPv6 Connectivity" doesn't really
> occur anymore, also, almost all browsers and OS IP stacks implement
> Happy Eyeballs algorithm where both v4 and v6 are attempted, so if v6
> dies it will try v4. I would also argue that lack of IPv6 technically
> makes the site unreachable from native IPv6 clients, and in the event of
> an IPv4 outage, connectivity might still remain on IPv6 if the site had
> an IPv6 address (I've experienced scenarios with a bad IPv4 BGP session,
> but the IPv6 session remained up and transiting traffic...)
>
> Thoughts?

Correct, the broken ipv6 thing is super rare and those rare event are
solved with Happy eyeballs.

There are well over 100 million ipv6-only Android and iOS devices in north
america alone.  Failing to deploy ipv6 on the website means they get to
share capacity on a CGN, ip repution issues, and indirection to reach the
CGN.

FB, Google, Netflix, Akamai and other push ipv6 because it is good for
business, the business of running money making content.





> -John