[99748] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Creating demand for IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (michael.dillon@bt.com)
Wed Oct 3 13:22:01 2007
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:39:10 +0100
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710030820h27769729gbd95da9700e6e4f5@mail.gmail.com>
From: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> If you run a web site and only have IPv6 access via 6to4, you=20
> SHOULD NOT publish a AAAA record. 6to4 has very few gateways=20
> and they get clogged at various times of the day. If you=20
> publish a AAAA record, every user who has IPv6 will first try=20
> to connect to you via IPv6 and experience a -long- delay.
This is precisely why someone else on the list suggested that the
content provider should run their own 6to4 relay and anounce 2002::/16
to their IPv6 peers. That way, the IPv6 packets take the direct IPv6
route to the content provider, and the IPv4 path is just a stub in the
content provider's network. Admittedly, if the IPv6 path itself has
issues due to poor peering, poor bandwidth, neglected routing, that will
rear its ugly head.
> If you care to wager, I'll take some of that action. Without=20
> a relatively transparent mechanism for IPv6-only hosts to=20
> access IPv4-only sites this isn't going to happen. We don't=20
> have such a mechanism built and won't have it deployed in 12 months.
What about these two?
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Transitioning:_6to4
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Transitioning:_NAT-PT
Have you tried both of these yourself?
--Michael Dillon
