NANOG 40 agenda posted

Mark Tinka mtinka at
Tue May 29 15:18:28 UTC 2007

On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:

> Can anyone think of a
> reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
> cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?

None that I can think of.

In the field, for servers/services we have enabled v6 on, we 
have created parallel hostnames for v6 addresses, e.g., 
someservice + someservice6, e.t.c. This is mostly for the 
period we continue to get an all-around feel for v6 on a 
user/service/administration level; hopefully, we shall come 
up with a more intuitive naming structure in the future, the 
ultimate being the same names currently in use with v4.

We haven't seen any issues so far with either v4 or v6 
connections/users (except for inexplicably marginally quicker 
response times over v6, but that's another story). 

In all cases, the v4 and v6 services live on the same box.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list