IPv6 woes - RFC
Stephen Satchell
list at satchell.net
Sun Sep 19 04:48:20 UTC 2021
On 9/18/21 8:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has AT&T business internet and they were able to get a static /56 (For some reason, AT&T refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.)
When I checked, there were NO options for ANY static IPv6. Perhaps the
devil is in the details of my particular "business Internet" package.
If "package" is the right term; I use them only for upstream
connectivity and rental of IP (and IPv6) addresses.
> If it turns out they won’t do PTR or more likely NS for our ip6.arpa zone, then we’ll probably start looking for an alternative provider
That's the problem with a facilities-based ISP, there are no alternative
providers. Oh, sure, I could get Spectrum here. Indeed, I had a
circuit: when I had their business service I had even more problems with
them than I do with this one.
> or get an HE /48 over a tunnel which will do PTR or NS records appropriately.
Hurricane Electric? Seriously? I had them when I was working at a web
host company quite a while ago. Have they improved their service desk?
The downside is that I would have a serial pair of points of failure for
my connectivity.
IPv6 was supposed to SOLVE the problems, not create more problems.
I look back longingly to that product from the 80s: Internet-in-a-box.
I also remember the birth of Interop, when I visited Telebit at a
session to work out the interoperability snags in PPP implementations
among a handful of vendors.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list