Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?
jcurran at mail.com
Mon Sep 17 21:18:07 UTC 2007
At 4:47 PM -0400 9/17/07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>On 9/17/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
>> On 17-sep-2007, at 19:06, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> > Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
>> > about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
>> > was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
>> > interface segregated.
>> For debugging purposes, it's always good to have
>> blah.ipvX.example.com, but the real question is: do you feel
>> comfortable adding AAAA records to your production domain names?
>> Although I've been running that way for years and I've had only one
>> or two complaints during that time, I can see how someone could be
>> worried about reduced performance over IPv6 (it's still slower than
>> IPv4 a lot of the time because of tunnel detours etc) or even
>> timeouts when advertised IPv6 connectivity doesn't work for someone,
>> such as a Vista user with a public IPv4 address behind a firewall
>> that blocks protocol 41.
>> Then again, I'm guessing that few people type www.ipv6.google.com
>> rather than www.google.com. And with stuff like mail, where you set
>> up the server names once and forget about it, it's even worse.
>I see. There isn't really an answer. :-) That's what I am getting at.
>Not to suggest that this is your responsibility, it's not - it's ours.
>For now, I'm going to try the unique A/AAAA and segregate the answers
>by protocol and sub domain the v4 traffic since it's a migration "to"
More information about the NANOG