using v6 specific names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

Edward Lewis Ed.Lewis at
Tue May 29 15:50:01 UTC 2007

At 10:31 -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
>>  This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
>>  they should not notice it.
>It is not useless- I am specifically talking about setting it up initially so
>that technically capable people can use and test the infrastructure without
>breaking anything for those people on v4 that have misconfigured v6 
>tunnels and
>the like (something that is not at all uncommon with Vista). If you just turn
>on AAAA records for right now, lots of people will end up being
>unable to connect to because of a broken tunnel- and right now
>ISP's are not primed to help their customers fix the problem.

 From experience, (see: I 
have done this.  I don't think I spent much time on that in the 
slides, but we did start with things like "ww6." and "ftp6."  It let 
us put up servers in a production environment and see them 
functionally work.

But the value in doing this is limited.

First, it can't/doesn't draw enough load to give an accurate feeling 
of whether "IPv6 works" because the only ones that know about it are 
those you tell.  (Not that IPv6 volume is all that great.)

Second, it isn't stable (long run) because you have to eventually use 
the same names for all network (IP) versions.  You'll have to ween 
the early adopters off the special names at some point.

I would say that this is something folks should just do to make sure 
the servers come up and answer.  But it not much of a "coming of age" 

Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468

Sarcasm doesn't scale.

More information about the NANOG mailing list