[139176] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 SEO implecations?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 28 21:14:47 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BA5F6D0B-A309-4D1E-92B8-C5D4E454AD79@oitc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:09:28 -0700
To: TR Shaw <tshaw@oitc.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:20 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>=20
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>=20
>> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:55 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> If you're worried about SEO, go with native IPv6 and then deploy =
AAAAs
>>> for WWW.domain.foo.
>>=20
>> Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a tunnel would be fine, =
too.
>=20
> So why does=20
>=20
> www A 127.0.0.1
> www AAAA ::1
>=20
> Preclude a tunnel? I can't get native here to my IPv6 is tunneled =
thru he (Thanks he) but that doesn't change dual DNS entires.
>=20
> (Note used loopback as an example)
>=20
> Tom
>=20
Well, hard to tunnel to a loopback address, but, using a better example:
www IN A 192.0.2.50
IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:50
Would not preclude a tunnel at all. The issue is that he seemed =
concerned
with additional latency from a tunnel resulting in SEO penalties, so, I =
suggested
native as a resolution to that concern.
Owen
