NANOG 40 agenda posted

Wed May 30 00:32:48 UTC 2007

On 30/05/2007, at 11:33 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:

>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and  
>> IPv6,
>> they should not notice it.
>> And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need  
>> to know
>> them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we  
>> start, sooner
>> we can sort it out, if required.
>
> In the past we've used "www6" for v6 only, "www4" for v4 only, and  
> "www" has both v6 and v4.  This means people can verify their v6  
> connectivity by visiting www6, or they can avoid v6 if they have  
> local problems by using www4 (since the site contains information  
> on setting up/troubleshooting v6 it's possible they can't get to it  
> via v6), but if they don't know/care they end up on "www" which  
> gives them whatever their software thinks it can support.

Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.

Another suggestion I have heard is having www A-only, and www6 AAAA- 
only, and transparently redirecting if they have IPv6 connectivity.  
Of course, that requires an IPv4 bootstrap, so is rather pointless.

--
Nathan Ward