Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>]

On 9/18/21 8:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has AT&T business internet and they were able 
> to get a static /56 (For some reason, AT&T refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.)

When I checked, there were NO options for ANY static IPv6.  Perhaps the 
devil is in the details of my particular "business Internet" package. 
If "package" is the right term; I use them only for upstream 
connectivity and rental of IP (and IPv6) addresses.

> If it turns out they won’t do PTR or more likely NS for our ip6.arpa zone, then we’ll probably start looking for an alternative provider 

That's the problem with a facilities-based ISP, there are no alternative 
providers.  Oh, sure, I could get Spectrum here.  Indeed, I had a 
circuit: when I had their business service I had even more problems with 
them than I do with this one.

> or get an HE /48 over a tunnel which will do PTR or NS records appropriately.

Hurricane Electric?  Seriously?  I had them when I was working at a web 
host company quite a while ago.  Have they improved their service desk? 
The downside is that I would have a serial pair of points of failure for 
my connectivity.

IPv6 was supposed to SOLVE the problems, not create more problems.

I look back longingly to that product from the 80s:  Internet-in-a-box.

I also remember the birth of Interop, when I visited Telebit at a 
session to work out the interoperability snags in PPP implementations 
among a handful of vendors.