Joe, Joe Abley: > Hi Fred, > > [I haven't read Jordi's draft; I'm just responding to what I've read in this > thread.]
Me too. > On Nov 25, 2017, at 14:00, Fred Baker <fredbaker.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One thing you might want to think about: the root servers are all >> IPv6-capable today and serve requests using IPv6, and the 1541 TLDs are all >> required by contract with ICANN to be IPv6-capable. I think you'll find >> yourself holding the burden of proof that the infrastructure isn't capable >> of IPv6-only operation today. > > monster:~]% egrep -c '^[A-Z]' /usr/share/misc/iso3166 > 249 > [monster:~]% > > There are potentially 249 TLDs that are not operated under any such contract > with ICANN, although I agree that the majority of ccTLDs have at least one > nameserver that is v6-capable (maybe all, but I haven't checked and I > wouldn't want to assume). No, not all. I just ran a check, and there are 23 TLD without any name servers that support IPv6. (There is also one TLD which is timing out on most queries and returning SERVFAIL on the ones that are up.) Also note that ICANN IDN ccTLD are also excluded from any IPv6 requirement, as are "historical" TLD like .EDU and .GOV (although .MIL is the only such TLD without IPv6 support today). Personally I think it was a mistake to exclude IDN ccTLD from an IPv6 requirement, although I am assured that any such requirement was completely impossible due to political reasons. Incidentally I brought the idea that we should help get IPv6 for all ccTLD up a couple years ago on the OARC DNS operations list. I was was called an imperialist pig for making such a suggestion. *shrug* Cheers, -- Shane "not bitter at all" Kerr _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
