-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/23/2010 05:42, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
- in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the authoritative name servers
- both of these servers *only* have IPv6 addresses
Which seems a bit far afield from reality to me. Yes, there are lots of folks with IPv6 connectivity and v4-only recursive DNS servers. I don't think ISPs will have problems setting aside a handful of IPv4 addresses for authoritative DNS infrastructure to work around this until v6 transport in recursive DNS servers is common enough.
Not really, having your nameservers be IPv6 enabled is a reasonable thing to do.
FYI: on comcast I see SERVFAIL, meaning their recursives do not have IPv6 transport.
(I know we have that at my employer on our customer-facing recursives).
; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> any www.onlyv6.com. ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 54773 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.onlyv6.com. IN ANY
;; Query time: 1605 msec ;; SERVER: 68.87.72.130#53(68.87.72.130) ;; WHEN: Fri Apr 23 08:41:08 2010 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 32
You'll see a lot of this. I've done my own little tests on a few friends' systems, and on public wifi, etc, establishing some sort of IPv6 connectivity, and trying to resolve a subdomaiin of mine with a IPv6 only DNS server. Many ISP recursive NS don't have IPv6 transport yet, so they choke getting to my NS. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkvRnmUACgkQ2fXFxl4S7sTfJwCfaKEB8juoXkHsgX7N+F+HNrEC PDwAoJm+Hn8NhBi6LKcX00T9JTEA35ma =nzM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----