On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote:
> And in the meantime, accept that the users of that operator's network > cannot reliably reach our services? > > If you were a user of that operator, I suspect you wouldn't like that. I > suspect you especially wouldn't like it if you called the operator and they > told you there were no problems, and most websites work fine. > Unfortunately, in our experience, both happen routinely. Often operators > will contact us and claim there is no problem in the network, and most of > the time it turns out that there was a problem they didn't know about. Once > the claim was made that "this is an IPv6-only network, so IPv6 must be > working". Unfortunately that wasn't true either. > > If an operator is monitoring IPv6 traffic levels, it will be pretty clear > if Google stops serving AAAA records to their resolvers. If they're not > monitoring IPv6 traffic levels, then chances are they're not monitoring > reliability, because it's much easier to monitor traffic than to monitor > reliability. > > There's also the question of how whether it's reasonable to expect > websites to to reduce the reliability of their services in order to fix > problems in other networks that they have no control over. Remember, IPv6 > brokenness was one of the main reasons it took so long for popular websites > to enable IPv6. > > I agree with Google's approach for now. But eventually it will have to be re-visited since Google represents a huge amount of traffic, pulling back AAAA and sending that huge amount of traffic to a CGN that is not dimension for it.... you are going to have a bad time. And, AFAIK, these measurements and adjustments are not real-time... so they blow up a CGN ... they wont automagically roll back for a while. So, Google AAAA magic becomes a DDoS of sorts. Maybe i am wrong. CB > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 17/04/2015 15:17, Erik Kline wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Phil Mayers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 16/04/15 01:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> >> >> >>> For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6 >> >>> connectivity and latency on an ongoing basis. The Google DNS servers >> do >> >>> not return AAAA records to DNS resolvers if our measurements indicate >> >>> that for users of those resolvers, HTTP/HTTPS access to dual-stack >> >>> Google services is substantially worse than to equivalent IPv4-only >> >>> services. "Worse" covers both reliability (e.g., failure to load a >> URL) >> >>> and latency (e.g., IPv6 is 100ms worse than IPv4 because it goes over >> an >> >>> ocean). The resolvers must also have a minimum query volume, which is >> >>> fairly low. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lorenzo, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the response. >> >> >> >> Do you know if Google have given any thought as to how long they might >> find >> >> it necessary to take these measures? Years, indefinitely? >> >> >> >> Just curious. >> > >> > It seems to keep on finding things, so... >> >> But 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}. >> >> Brian >> > >
