[142109] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 17 23:13:14 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110618011115.0C0A010E3EE2@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:07:26 -0700
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
> In message <BANLkTi=3DDGwuN_9xnBzq-ukdKxeYnuQ16Bw@mail.gmail.com>, =
Michael Dillon writes:
>>> The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog =
effort or
>>> your own.
>>=20
>> It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and
>> other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a theme or focus for
>> each month. If you have a focus, then you can recruit a lot of IPv6
>> testers to try out certain things on IPv6 day and get a more thorough
>> test and more feedback
>>=20
>> Skip July and August because it takes time to get this organized, and
>> then start the next one on September the 8th or thereabouts.
>>=20
>> For instance, one month could focus on full IPv6 DNS support, but
>> maybe not right away. A nice easy start would be to deal with IPv6
>> peering and weird paths that result from tunnels. That is the kind of
>> thing that would work good with a lot of testers participating and an
>> application that traces IPv4 and IPv6 paths and measures hop count,
>> latency, packet loss.
>>=20
>> In conjunction with the monthly IPv6 day, NANOG should set up a blog
>> page or similar to publicly collect incident reports and solutions.
>=20
> I really don't know why anyone is worried about advertising AAAA
> records for authoritative nameservers. It just works. Recursive
> nameservers have been dealing with authoritative nameservers having
> IPv6 addresses for well over a decade now. This includes dealing
> with them being unreachable.
>=20
> DNS/UDP is not like HTTP/TCP. You don't have connect timeouts to
> worry about. Recursive nameservers have much shorter timeouts as
> they need to deal with IPv4 nameservers not being reachable. They
> also have to do all this re-trying within 3 or so seconds or else
> the stub clients will have timed out.
>=20
Ah, but, with IPv6 records, you are much more likely to end up with
a TRUNC result and a TCP query than with IPv4.
Owen
