iMac:owen (112) ~ % host www.amazon.com
2022/03/31 17:16:40
www.amazon.com is an alias for tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com.
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com is an alias for d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net has address 143.204.129.80
and
iMac:owen (113) ~ % dig -t aaaa www.amazon.com
2022/03/31 17:26:36
; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t aaaa www.amazon.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33930
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.amazon.com. IN AAAA
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.amazon.com. 228 IN CNAME
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com.
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com. 45 IN CNAME d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. 46 IN SOA ns-130.awsdns-16.com.
awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400
;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.159.10.2#53(192.159.10.2)
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 31 17:26:50 PDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 206
0.002u 0.017s 0:00.02 50.0% 0+0k 0+0io 2pf+0w
iMac:owen (114) ~ % dig -t aaaa tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com
2022/03/31 17:26:50
; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t aaaa tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 25417
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com. IN AAAA
;; ANSWER SECTION:
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com. 21 IN CNAME d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. 22 IN SOA ns-130.awsdns-16.com.
awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400
;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.159.10.2#53(192.159.10.2)
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 31 17:27:14 PDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 188
0.002u 0.005s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
iMac:owen (115) ~ % dig -t aaaa d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
2022/03/31 17:27:14
; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t aaaa d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net.
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63871
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. IN AAAA
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
d3ag4hukkh62yn.cloudfront.net. 5 IN SOA ns-130.awsdns-16.com.
awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400
;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.159.10.2#53(192.159.10.2)
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 31 17:27:31 PDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 142
So… As I said… Amazon.
Owen
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 16:00 , Andras Toth <diosbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-ipv6-only-subnets-and-ec2-instances/
>
> <https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-ipv6-only-subnets-and-ec2-instances/>
>
>> On 1 Apr 2022, at 06:44, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>>
>> In short:
>> Amazon
>> Alibaba
>> Google Cloud
>>
>> And a few other laggards that are key destinations that a lot of eyeball
>> customers expect to be
>> able to reach.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2022, at 13:53 , Jacques Latour <jacques.lat...@cira.ca
>>> <mailto:jacques.lat...@cira.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going to be dual stack
>>> IPv4/IPv6?
>>> When are we going to give up on IPv4?
>>> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
>>> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
>>>
>>> 😊
>>>
>>> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira...@nanog.org
>>> <mailto:nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira...@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Owen
>>> DeLong via NANOG
>>> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
>>> To: Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>>
>>> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported
>>> re: 202203261833.AYC
>>>
>>> Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets
>>> introduced.
>>>
>>> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible
>>> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since
>>> at least 2015.
>>>
>>> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then
>>> perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t
>>> like your idea.
>>>
>>> Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that
>>> your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It
>>> might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com
>>> <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Justin:
>>>
>>> 1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ":
>>> After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For
>>> example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4
>>> enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please
>>> make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Abe (2022-03-26 18:42)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
>>> While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information,
>>> the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be
>>> defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP,
>>> among many other examples). It's important to separate the ideas from the
>>> plumbing.
>>>
>>> That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal
>>> freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with an eye
>>> toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into
>>> wider use. It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly mutated
>>> into a production service. Why should we continue to expend effort to
>>> perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider
>>> use?
>>>
>>> Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain
>>> point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> jms
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com
>>> <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6): I believe that there is a philosophic /
>>> logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in
>>> mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom".
>>> Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their
>>> energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project
>>> attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial
>>> barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed
>>> right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility
>>> with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering
>>> discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but
>>> defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress,
>>> not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.
>>
