[126027] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Apr 28 10:50:26 2010
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <g2v75cb24521004260807z1ea1a3a0vaa05e5e4ef3268a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:49:37 -0400
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010-04-26, at 11:07, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Don't forget the hotspot vendor that returns an address of 0.0.0.1 =
for
>> every A query if you have previously done an AAAA query for the same
>> name (and timed out). That's a fun one.
>=20
> so... aside from the every 3 months bitching on this list (and some on
> v6ops maybe) about these sorts of things, what's happening to
> tell/educate/warn/notice the hotspot-vendors that this sort of
> practice (along with 'everything is at 1.1.1.1!') is just a bad plan?
> How can users, even more advanced users, tell a hotspot vendor in a
> meaningful way that their 'solution' is broken?
It seems like a good step in the right direction would be to determine =
an approach that makes sense and to document it.
Such an approach which made minimal exotic demands of client or hotspot =
(or back-end) systems might seem attractive to hotspot operators if it =
seemed likely to minimise support costs, or reduce development costs =
through re-use of free software components, or something.
Does such an approach exist? Is it documented?
Joe=
