[126105] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Connectivity to an IPv6-only site
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Fri Apr 30 14:24:19 2010
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:23:28 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <g2v75cb24521004260807z1ea1a3a0vaa05e5e4ef3268a4@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/26/2010 8:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Stephen Sprunk<stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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?
Years ago I talked to a startup's funders about the fact that they had
made a design decision to build hardcoded unassigned /8s into a captive
portal and mobility gateway.
We didn't buy their product, they changed it, company folded.
The most meaningful thing one can do is vote with your wallet.
> -chris
>
