From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Apr 19 9:54: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from purgatory.unfix.org (cust.92.136.adsl.cistron.nl [195.64.92.136]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC12137B41D for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00C03186; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:53:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from HELL (hell.unfix.org [::ffff:10.100.13.66]) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B9F3147; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:53:45 +0200 (CEST) From: "Jeroen Massar" To: "'Pekka Savola'" , Cc: "'Robert'" , "'6bone'" <6bone@ISI.EDU>, "'ipv6users'" , "'freebsd-stable'" Subject: RE: A DNS question re 6to6/IPv6 host IN A records. Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:53:43 +0200 Organization: Unfix Message-ID: <001101c1e7c2$c46416d0$420d640a@unfix.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS @ purgatory.unfix.org Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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