[125792] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Fri Apr 23 08:43:37 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <n2g85d954181004230249vfe0baf6bn573ffca1a72e9971@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:42:41 -0400
To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> =
wrote:
>> - in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the authoritative
>> name servers
>>=20
>> - both of these servers *only* have IPv6 addresses
>=20
> Which seems a bit far afield from reality to me. Yes, there are lots
> of folks with IPv6 connectivity and v4-only recursive DNS servers. I
> don't think ISPs will have problems setting aside a handful of IPv4
> addresses for authoritative DNS infrastructure to work around this
> until v6 transport in recursive DNS servers is common enough.
Not really, having your nameservers be IPv6 enabled is a reasonable =
thing to do.
FYI: on comcast I see SERVFAIL, meaning their recursives do not have =
IPv6 transport.
(I know we have that at my employer on our customer-facing recursives).
; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> any www.onlyv6.com.
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 54773
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.onlyv6.com. IN ANY
;; Query time: 1605 msec
;; SERVER: 68.87.72.130#53(68.87.72.130)
;; WHEN: Fri Apr 23 08:41:08 2010
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 32
