At 10:31 -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6, they should not notice it. It is not useless- I am specifically talking about setting it up initially so that technically capable people can use and test the infrastructure without breaking anything for those people on v4 that have misconfigured v6 tunnels and the like (something that is not at all uncommon with Vista). If you just turn on AAAA records for www.google.com right now, lots of people will end up being unable to connect to www.google.com because of a broken tunnel- and right now ISP's are not primed to help their customers fix the problem.
From experience, (see: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/pdf/lewis.pdf) I have done this. I don't think I spent much time on that in the slides, but we did start with things like "ww6." and "ftp6." It let us put up servers in a production environment and see them functionally work. But the value in doing this is limited. First, it can't/doesn't draw enough load to give an accurate feeling of whether "IPv6 works" because the only ones that know about it are those you tell. (Not that IPv6 volume is all that great.) Second, it isn't stable (long run) because you have to eventually use the same names for all network (IP) versions. You'll have to ween the early adopters off the special names at some point. I would say that this is something folks should just do to make sure the servers come up and answer. But it not much of a "coming of age" step. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale.