Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:53:43 +0200 From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org> To: "'Pekka Savola'" <pekkas@netcore.fi>, <itojun@iijlab.net> Cc: "'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: <001101c1e7c2$c46416d0$420d640a@unfix.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204191651110.1190-100000@netcore.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 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 > > to transition to IPv6 much smoother. > > That is true, but it may have it's drawbacks. Often, still, IPv6 > connectivity is worse than with IPv4. People who are > dual-stack will use IPv6 when trying to reach 'nanguo'. It may be more unoptimal yet. Sorry to say it but I really think it's a load of B.S.... in my opinion anyways. Most hosts I 'use' most of they day and that are IPv6 connected are as close as when I would use IPv4. I use IPv6 transparently fortunatly so I usually don't even notice the difference between IPv6 and IPv4. Remote hosts (non-european :) though are flaky sometimes. Certainly this would improve very much when all those tunnels crossing multiple AS's dissappear, it will take some time but it will come one day ;) Ofcourse I am fortunatly on the cool side of the pond and we do actually get native uplinks here. Even though my first hop isn't ready yet, it's only 1 hop, 20ms in IPv4 and 20ms in IPv6. KAME is about 300ms 'away' from Holland most of the times in both IPv4 and IPv6, so I wonder why IPv6 has 'drawbacks' over IPv4. > For conservative IPv6 adoption, I recommend the former (at least first). > For more radical IPv6 adoption, and for non-production services, the > latter is usually more suitable. The second is certainly production capable. Why should it be "non-production" anyways. Okay 6bone isn't 'production quality' maybe as it's ofcourse testing grounds, but IPv6 is. PS: Check http://isoc.nl/activ/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.htm for a great presentation given by Steve Deering in Amsterdam yesterday at the WTCW (AMS-IX grounds). Slide 50 shows a pragmatic projection of IPv6 deployment with the US tagging behind Asia for about 2.5 years and 1.5 years behind Europe! I sure hope that changes quite soon over there. Greets, Jeroen 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?001101c1e7c2$c46416d0$420d640a>