fp.o content via IPv6

[Jeff Garzik]

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 config. 
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/networking/news/views_0501.html

	Jeff