On 09/09/2009 09:48 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Matt Domsch wrote:
> We could instead advertise www.ipv6.fp.o
and make people choose to use
> v6 or not. Google does this today for exactly these reasons (failures
> elsewhere in the network we can't control). Kind of defeats the
> purpose though.
Why not do this and continue working on ipv6 on the rest of the systems?
"rest of the systems" == rest of the world. could take a while :)
This is precisely IPv6's catch-22: if providers don't implement IPv6,
then end user networks won't get fixed. If end user networks don't get
fixed, providers won't implement IPv6.
The hosts that require an explicit hostname (ipv6.google.com
) tend to
get used very rarely, and are poorly integrated into the existing site.
There tend to be three main policy choices:
1) Work through the problems. The ideal, and also the most difficult.
The most irritating to end users.
2) Wikimedia approach: deploy IPv6 as first class citizen for all
engineer/admin services, where presumably the end user has some
knowledge when delays or strange errors appear. wait a bit to deploy
IPv6 on main, public-facing, Windows-user-using sites.
3) Google DNS approach: Whitelist networks that are IPv6-safe: Using a
feature such as BIND views, return AAAA records, or not, depending on
whether the querying system is in the whitelist.
A nice approach and OK for google, but IMO probably too much trouble and
manual labor for fp.o. An alternate approach, possibly viable for fp.o,
could be to blacklist (== no AAAA records returned in DNS) networks that
are terminally broken.
If people wanted to pursue alt#3, I'm pretty sure BIND views will do the
trick... they worked for me in the past, delivering two different
versions of a zone depending on whether the querying party was
"external" or "internal" to the network on which I deployed that