North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: Nathan Ward
  • Date: Tue May 29 20:55:43 2007


On 30/05/2007, at 11:33 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:


JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner
we can sort it out, if required.

In the past we've used "www6" for v6 only, "www4" for v4 only, and "www" has both v6 and v4. This means people can verify their v6 connectivity by visiting www6, or they can avoid v6 if they have local problems by using www4 (since the site contains information on setting up/troubleshooting v6 it's possible they can't get to it via v6), but if they don't know/care they end up on "www" which gives them whatever their software thinks it can support.

Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.


Another suggestion I have heard is having www A-only, and www6 AAAA- only, and transparently redirecting if they have IPv6 connectivity. Of course, that requires an IPv4 bootstrap, so is rather pointless.

--
Nathan Ward