[99310] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Hannigan)
Mon Sep 17 16:48:30 2007
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:47:30 -0400
From: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan@gmail.com>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "Barrett Lyon" <blyon@blyon.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <0F5C65F8-0A9E-442A-9E01-B6961DCC0857@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 9/17/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> On 17-sep-2007, at 19:06, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
> > about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
> > was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
> > interface segregated.
>
> For debugging purposes, it's always good to have
> blah.ipvX.example.com, but the real question is: do you feel
> comfortable adding AAAA records to your production domain names?
> Although I've been running that way for years and I've had only one
> or two complaints during that time, I can see how someone could be
> worried about reduced performance over IPv6 (it's still slower than
> IPv4 a lot of the time because of tunnel detours etc) or even
> timeouts when advertised IPv6 connectivity doesn't work for someone,
> such as a Vista user with a public IPv4 address behind a firewall
> that blocks protocol 41.
>
> Then again, I'm guessing that few people type www.ipv6.google.com
> rather than www.google.com. And with stuff like mail, where you set
> up the server names once and forget about it, it's even worse.
>
I see. There isn't really an answer. :-) That's what I am getting at.
Not to suggest that this is your responsibility, it's not - it's ours.
For now, I'm going to try the unique A/AAAA and segregate the answers
by protocol and sub domain the v4 traffic since it's a migration "to"
v6.
-M<
