[96971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Tue May 29 20:45:15 2007
In-Reply-To: <465CB85D.5010504@coders.net>
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:32:48 +1200
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 30/05/2007, at 11:33 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
>> IPv6,
>> they should not notice it.
>> And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need
>> to know
>> them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we
>> start, sooner
>> we can sort it out, if required.
>
> In the past we've used "www6" for v6 only, "www4" for v4 only, and
> "www" has both v6 and v4. This means people can verify their v6
> connectivity by visiting www6, or they can avoid v6 if they have
> local problems by using www4 (since the site contains information
> on setting up/troubleshooting v6 it's possible they can't get to it
> via v6), but if they don't know/care they end up on "www" which
> gives them whatever their software thinks it can support.
Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.
Another suggestion I have heard is having www A-only, and www6 AAAA-
only, and transparently redirecting if they have IPv6 connectivity.
Of course, that requires an IPv4 bootstrap, so is rather pointless.
--
Nathan Ward
