[96877] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald Stahl)
Tue May 29 09:27:31 2007
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <p06240802c281c694fbc2@[192.168.3.65]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
> customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even
> if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and
> mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to
> use IPv6, it's getting their public-facing servers IPv6
> reachable in addition to IPv4.
Exactly.
So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users connected
via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the content is reachable.
The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start by
using different dns names for IPv6 enabled servers- mail.ipv6.yahoo.com or
whatever. Can anyone think of a reason that a separate hostname for IPv6
services might cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
-Don
