On 4/16/15 10:22 PM, Frank Habicht wrote:
Hi,On 4/17/2015 6:45 AM, Erik Kline wrote:On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Brian E CarpenterBut the incentive is wrong. Forcing users to drop back to IPv4 offers no incentive to fix the IPv6 problem. The correct incentive would be to tell an operator that they will be blacklisted unless they fix {X and Y}.We almost never know what X or Y are. We only detect that there appears to be a problem.maybe just a short email to the whois contacts (some really read them) "we have noticed something wrong with your IPv6, we're now not giving AAAA to these resolvers: x.x.x.x/y" and maybe a link to a test site... without that you're lowering chances of it being fixed. with that email you increase them.
They also increase chances of the operator trying drag Google into an IPv6 helpdesk role.
I don't like Google's policy on this, and I'm not sure it's what I would do, but I see their point.
Doug --I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
