[143506] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v4/v6 dns thoughts?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Aug 11 08:32:33 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACrxPKk7MkO1ZC4NESV3s71t+gV6eQZnD3PmCC4qbFejcsBxVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:25:58 -0700
To: Andrew Parnell <andrew@parnell.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 10, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Andrew Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> I also don't recommend doing the foo.v4/foo.v6 thing in your =
forwards. There's
>> really no advantage to do it. Most tools either have separate =
IPv4/IPv6 variants
>> or have command-line switches for address-family control if you care.
>=20
> For most tools that I ordinarily use, I would certainly agree with
> this. The only exception might be from a web browser; while there are
> ways that they can be reconfigured to only use certain IP versions in
> certain cases, it is probably more straightforward to use
> www.ipvN.domain.tld or a similar name.
>=20
In a web browser, I don't care unless I'm troubleshooting.
If I'm troubleshooting, my web browser of choice is probably wget rather
than one of the kitchen sink GUI based browsers. It turns out that wget
supports the flag in question.
Owen
