IPv6 day non-participants
wjhns61 at hardakers.net
Mon Jun 13 14:18:37 UTC 2011
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:21:12 -0700, "George B." <georgeb at gmail.com> said:
GB> There is a reason for that. First of all, we (my employer) took this
GB> as a brief test to simply see how much IPv6 traffic there really was,
GB> and who and what would actually attempt to reach us by IPv6. The idea
GB> here being to attempt to identify IPv6 native networks.
Yep. I agree, there are many reasons why you wouldn't want to
participate in a full set of tests. I never said otherwise! In fact,
many (very much "most") sites didn't participate at all in IPv6 day, so
certainly the ones that did get some kudos for playing at all.
GB> The test did, however, expose a bug in a piece of vendor gear that was
GB> catastrophic to the business service.
And that's really the point: get up to speed, test things before hand as
best you can, and then test everything you can. The whole point of the
day was to expose problems (and successes)! You've exposed one and I'm
sure are looking for fixes for it! My only real point is that you still
probably don't know what problems exist with the DNS services if you
didn't turn IPv6 support for DNS too. I do understand your hesitation,
however, as it sounds like you were pretty sure there would be an
My Pictures: http://capturedonearth.com/
My Thoughts: http://pontifications.hardakers.net/
More information about the NANOG