.nyc - here we go...
mike at mikejones.in
Fri Jul 5 08:43:39 UTC 2013
On 5 July 2013 02:02, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
> Someone who should know better wrote:
> > Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> > is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> > everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
> > definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
> And this was true when the v6 and DEC requirements entered the DAG?
> Try again, and while you're inventing a better past, explain how
> everyone knew that it would take 6 revisions of the DAG and take until
> 3Q2012 before an applicant could predict when capabilities could be
> The one thing you've got going for you is that in 2009 no one knew
> that almost all of the nearly 2,000 applicants would be forced by
> higher technical and financial requirements to pick one of a universe
> of fewer than 50 service providers, or that nearly all of the
> "developing economies" would be excluded, or self-exclude, from
> attempting to apply. So the basic diversity assumption was wrong.
> Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
> confidence they have all the clue necessary?
Why do people who make statements about .com not being IPv6 reachable think
they have all the clue necessary? And what about those people who think
that DNSSEC is about validating the answers from the root/TLD name servers?
At least you avoided the common mistake of citing the 1% end user IPv6
availability figure when claiming that IPv6 wasn't available in data
More information about the NANOG