At 4:47 PM -0400 9/17/07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
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<