[166415] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ipv6 and geolocation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blair Trosper)
Tue Oct 22 22:55:10 2013
In-Reply-To: <DE626156-94DD-4E63-BADF-51655032D0EC@hopcount.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:54:54 -0500
From: Blair Trosper <blair.trosper@gmail.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I meant that PTR isn't a priority for ISPs. A la Comcast's rollout of IPv6
lacks PTR, as does Google in general for v4 and v6 (even though they have
it internally).
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2013-10-22, at 15:16, Blair Trosper <blair.trosper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone loves IPv6, and it's a fantastic technology. However, I've been
> > pondering a few quirks of v6, including the low priority of PTR,
>
> Not sure what that means, but...
>
> > but I have a question I want to throw out there:
> >
> > Do you think IPv6 geolocatoin (GeoIP) will ever be viable?
>
> To me it seems like an easier problem to solve than IPv4. There's no
> historical assignment swamp. Subnets are of fixed size. Many/most
> organisations who receive a direct assignment will never need a second.
>
> > If so, when do you think this will happen?
>
> As soon as enough people using geo-located services start doing so over v6.
>
>
> Joe
>
>
