On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <BANLkTi=dgwun_9xnbzq-ukdkxeynuq1...@mail.gmail.com>, Michael > Dillon writes: >>> The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or >>> your own. >> >> It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and >> other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a theme or focus for >> each month. If you have a focus, then you can recruit a lot of IPv6 >> testers to try out certain things on IPv6 day and get a more thorough >> test and more feedback >> >> Skip July and August because it takes time to get this organized, and >> then start the next one on September the 8th or thereabouts. >> >> For instance, one month could focus on full IPv6 DNS support, but >> maybe not right away. A nice easy start would be to deal with IPv6 >> peering and weird paths that result from tunnels. That is the kind of >> thing that would work good with a lot of testers participating and an >> application that traces IPv4 and IPv6 paths and measures hop count, >> latency, packet loss. >> >> In conjunction with the monthly IPv6 day, NANOG should set up a blog >> page or similar to publicly collect incident reports and solutions. > > I really don't know why anyone is worried about advertising AAAA > records for authoritative nameservers. It just works. Recursive > nameservers have been dealing with authoritative nameservers having > IPv6 addresses for well over a decade now. This includes dealing > with them being unreachable. > > DNS/UDP is not like HTTP/TCP. You don't have connect timeouts to > worry about. Recursive nameservers have much shorter timeouts as > they need to deal with IPv4 nameservers not being reachable. They > also have to do all this re-trying within 3 or so seconds or else > the stub clients will have timed out. > Ah, but, with IPv6 records, you are much more likely to end up with a TRUNC result and a TCP query than with IPv4.
Owen
