nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 09:03:10 -0400
Bryan, On Oct 22, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Bryan Fields <Bryan () bryanfields net> wrote:
On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet service providers in which IPv6 is 'held hostage' as part of slow commercial negotiations. Surely end-to-end IPv6 connectivity should be a priority?Even the DNS root servers are not 100% reachable via IPv6.
Excepting temporary failures, they are as far as I am aware. Why do you think they aren’t?
I would think IANA would have some standard about reachability for root operators.
I think you might misunderstand relationships here. The IANA team’s standards are what the community defines. In the case of the root operators, RFC 7720 says “root service” must be available via IPv6 and RSSAC-001 (“Service Expectations of Root Servers”, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-001-root-service-expectations-04dec15-en.pdf) says: "[E.3.1-B] Individual Root Servers will deliver the service in conformance to IETF standards and requirements as described in RFC 7720 [4] and any other IETF standards-defined Internet Protocol as deemed appropriate." So, in theory, all the root servers should be available via IPv6 and, as far as I can tell, they are. However, the IANA team is not the enforcement arm of the Internet. If a root server operator chooses to not abide by RFC 7720, there is nothing the IANA team can do unilaterally other than make the root server operator aware of the fact.
Until IPv6 becomes provides a way to make money for the ISP, I don't see it being offered outside of the datacenter.
Different markets, different approaches. In the areas I’ve lived in Los Angeles, commodity residential service via AT&T (1 Gbps up/down fiber) and Spectrum (varying speeds) is dual stack by default (as far as I can tell). I suspect all it would take would be one of the providers in your area to offer IPv6 and advertise the fact in their marketing to cause the others to fall into line. Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Lukas Tribus (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Matthew Walster (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Job Snijders via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's tim () pelican org (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Tom Hill (Oct 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's David Conrad (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Christopher Morrow (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's David Conrad (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) Bryan Fields (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) John Curran (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) John Levine (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) Fred Baker (Oct 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG (Oct 26)