IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

Justin M. Streiner streiner at cluebyfour.org
Fri Feb 3 20:27:34 UTC 2012

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, -Hammer- wrote:

> "If you have a specific route to a AAAA record but a less specific route to 
> an A record the potential is for the trip to take longer."
> That was the premise of the thread. I swear I googled it for 20 minutes to 
> link before giving up. Anyway, can anyone who's been thru this provide any 
> opinions on why or why not it is important to accept the full IPv6 table AND 
> the full IPv4 table? I have the hardware to handle it I'm just not sure long 
> term what the reasoning would be for or against. Again, I'm an end customer. 
> Not a carrier. So my concern is (A) my Internet facing applications and (B) 
> my users who eventually will surf IPv6.

We currently take full v4 and v6 routes, however we do not yet have 
end-users officially on v6 (users doing their own 6to4 tunnels and stuff 
like Teredo notwithstanding), so I don't have any experience with the 
A/AAAA resolution asymmetry you're describing.


More information about the NANOG mailing list