Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:54:56 +0200 From: Pim van Pelt <pim@ipng.nl> To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Cc: itojun@iijlab.net, 'Robert' <robert@chalmers.com.au>, '6bone' <6bone@ISI.EDU>, 'ipv6users' <users@ipv6.org>, 'freebsd-stable' <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: A DNS question re 6to6/IPv6 host IN A records. Message-ID: <20020422105456.GK7029@bfib.colo.bit.nl> In-Reply-To: <000701c1e7b3$4007cda0$420d640a@unfix.org> References: <5288.1019217600@itojun.org> <000701c1e7b3$4007cda0$420d640a@unfix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I agree with Pekka mostly. Having the same IN A/AAAA RRs for the hostnames in your zonefile can make for awkward situations. One example might be the NL-BIT6 deployment. We have a C3640 with a 10 mbps port acting as vlan router for IPv6. It then pushes the traffic to the AMS-IX. If I am sitting at any IPv6 peer-site, and ssh/ftp/telnet to my machine at the colo, and it were to have both protocols reachable via the same name, then I would connect using IPv6 because this is preferred. However, I like my pron to transfer fast, so the gigabit IPv4 connection (yes I have a 1000SX board in my colo-box :) is preferrable over the turtle-speed IPv6 connection. The other point one might make is that IPv6 is often less well maintained than the IPv4 network. Some tunnel might go down, zebra might crash (or even IOS) and the connection will be left unattended by many administrators. This is why I normally make some distinction either by hostname 'hog.colo.bit.nl IN A' vs 'hog.colo.ipv6.bit.nl IN AAAA' or by domain name 'hog.colo.bit.nl IN A' vs 'hog.ipng.nl IN AAAA'. groet, Pim On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:02:34PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: | itojun@iijlab.net wrote: | | > >In the forward/reverse zones on a 6to4 setup, should I have | > >nanguo IN A 203.1.96.5 | > >nanguo-v6 IN AAAA 2002:cb01:6005:2::1 | > >or | > >nanguo IN A 203.1.96.5 | > >nanguo IN AAAA 2002:cb01:6005:2::1 | > >When referring to the particular host ? | > >Either works - but which is ... errr... correct? | > | > i recommend the latter, definitely. with the latter | > you will be able o transition to IPv6 much smoother. | | Definitely the latter one even with reverses. | I do usually add something like: | | purgatory A 195.64.92.136 | purgatory AAAA 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f | purgatory.ipv4 A 195.64.92.136 | purgatory.ipv6 AAAA 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f | | Reason: some programs can't be told to only use IPv6 or only IPv4 | (usually -6 or -4 option). | This way one can 'force' it to use either transport. | I do usually leave out the ipv4 though as I don't use that much any more | anyways ;) | | Greets, | Jeroen -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020422105456.GK7029>