Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Damian Menscher via NANOG wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:55:41AM -0700, > > Damian Menscher wrote > > a message of 82 lines which said: > > > > > Can you point to published studies where

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:55:41AM -0700, > Damian Menscher wrote > a message of 82 lines which said: > > > Can you point to published studies where the root and .com server > > operators analyzed Todd's questions? > > For the root,

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:55:41AM -0700, Damian Menscher wrote a message of 82 lines which said: > Can you point to published studies where the root and .com server > operators analyzed Todd's questions? For the root, the most comprehensive one is probably SAC 18 A good summary is

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:20:17AM -0400, > Todd Underwood wrote > a message of 66 lines which said: > > > so implications that this is somehow related to Google dragging > > their feet are silly. > > Implying that the root name ser

Re: Question to Google

One badly configured mid sized ISP might blow search's entire failure budget. (Read the SRE book.) I have been trying for years to get somebody to do a measurement to show that properly configured dual stack generally has better user QoE than either protocol alone, largely because CGN doesn't sca

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:20:17AM -0400, > Todd Underwood wrote > a message of 66 lines which said: > > > so implications that this is somehow related to Google dragging > > their feet are silly. > > Implying that the root name se

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:20:17AM -0400, Todd Underwood wrote a message of 66 lines which said: > so implications that this is somehow related to Google dragging > their feet are silly. Implying that the root name server operators, or Verisign (manager of the .com name servers) did not test

Re: Question to Google

Todd Underwood writes: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > >> >> There are many zones (including your isc.org) that have several name >> servers dual-stacked, and they didn't notice a problem. Furthermore, >> since the DNS is a tree, resolution of google.com requires

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > it's a whacky world. as geoff said long ago, if there ever is real > money counting on v6 transport, these messes will straighten out. > totally agree. and i'd like someone else to volunteer the "real money" traffic, please. :-) t

Re: Question to Google

> It wouldn't suprise me if the dispute between Google and Cogent was > not part of the issue. Pure speculation on my part. I could be > completely off base. here in japan, if you are using ntt bflets layer two, your layer three provider is likely to present you with a dns server which does not

Re: Question to Google

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > There are many zones (including your isc.org) that have several name > servers dual-stacked, and they didn't notice a problem. Furthermore, > since the DNS is a tree, resolution of google.com requires a proper > resolution of the roo

Re: Question to Google

In message <20170515124359.a3o7evaostrvm...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes : > > Unfortunately, every time we've looked at the data, the > > conclusion has been that it would cause unwarranted user > > impact. IIRC the most recent blocker was a major US ISP whose > > clients w

Re: Question to Google

> Unfortunately, every time we've looked at the data, the > conclusion has been that it would cause unwarranted user > impact. IIRC the most recent blocker was a major US ISP whose > clients would experience breakage if even just one NS record > was dual-stacked. Ther

Re: Question to Google

In message , "Marco Davids (Pr ivate)" writes: > > Hi, > > Anyone knows why coogle.com only have IPv4-adresses on their > authoritative DNS? > > https://ip6.nl/#!google.com > > Are there any plans to fix this? > > -- > Marco Lorenzo's reply to this statement Google isn't reachable.   Th

Question to Google

Hi, Anyone knows why coogle.com only have IPv4-adresses on their authoritative DNS? https://ip6.nl/#!google.com Are there any plans to fix this? -- Marco smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature