[187213] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Constantine A. Murenin)
Fri Jan 22 20:53:37 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:31 -0800
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman@ipifony.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 21 January 2016 at 19:42, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman@ipifony.com> wr=
ote:
> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disp=
utes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years.
>
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we=E2=80=99ll b=
e seeing less tolerance for this behavior.
Nope. Most user-facing apps are in support of Happy Eyeballs.
When Facebook's FB.ME was down on IPv6 just a short while ago in 2013,
it took DAYS for anyone to notice.
http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2013-May/005571.html
Lots of popular sites publish AAAA with non-reachable services all the
time, and still noone notices to this day.
The old school command line tools are the only ones affected. One may
also notice it with `ssh -D` SOCKS5 proxying, but only if one's
browser doesn't decide to leak out hostname resolution and operate
directly with IPv4-addresses to start with, like Chrome does.
Cheers,
Constantine.SU.
