[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Will IPv4 be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough ?
On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| [aggregated mail :)]
| Mohsen Souissi [mailto:Mohsen.Souissi@nic.fr] wrote:
| > On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
| > | Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very public.
| > ==> AFNIC (French Registry) has been running an official IPv6-capable
| > name server (ns3.nic.fr)
| Yup, indeed, sorry I forgot, you have been running it and shouting
| about for some time already :)
==> I'm glad you heard that... ;-)
| But did they put your AAAA as glue in the root already?
==> Unfortunately not yet :-(
| $ dig @e.root-servers.net ns3.nic.fr any
| ;; ANSWER SECTION:
| ns3.nic.fr. 172800 IN A 18.104.22.168
| There are quite a lot of deployments who run IPv6 transport
| capable dns servers, but as long as they are not bound into
| the root it has little to no sense.
==> I unfortunately agree with you :-(
The fact that no TLD's IPv6 glue is registered in the root zone is
rather a layer-9 issue that a layer-7 one. As far as FR zone is
concerned, we have officially applied for AAAA glue registration that
in Feb 2003. Technical proofs was then given to IANA that there were
no risk in adding AAAA glue in the root zone for FR zone (based on
Draft Vixie & Kato
Although that fact has been acknowledged by IANA and DNS experts, we
are still waiting... We hope this issue will be solved very soon and
I believe that IPv6 networking will be then much more credible (we
will see real amounts of IPv6 traffic)...
| > | We have www.rs.net providing this for some time, but unfortunatly
| > | it has some issues: it doesn't allow 'access' to non-IPv6 capable
| > | domains and there isn't a european part of that deployment; yet, I
| > | understood.
| > ==> Sounds ver strange... FR zone (it is a European for instance) has
| > been connected to rs.net (formerly OTDR) for more than one year
| > now. Both ns.dnssec.nic.fr (which are authoritative for FR zone in
| > rs.net testbed) support both IPv4 and IPv6 transport...
| Indeed, for .fr but not for the root :(
| What I meant to say that if you use the "IPv6 root" and try to resolve
| a domain that only has IPv4 DNS servers, eg .com, currently it works again:
| com. 518400 IN NS COM-A.ip4.int.
| COM-A.ip4.int. 518400 IN AAAA <SNIP>
| But it is flaky and doesn't always work unfortunatly.
| The not-work part also has to do with the fact that all these
| servers reside in the US and not in Europe. I understood that
| Daniel Karrenberg was working on that part though...
| Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
| > Jeroen Massar wrote:
| > > So kick your ISP, access and hosting, to get doing IPv6 and
| > > if the access to that ISP can't provide native IPv6 ask them
| > > to set up a tunnelbroker system, 6to4 relay etc for solving
| > > that problem.
| > I guess it is one of v6ops role
| > ISP design team is trying to propose a valuable thing for us....
| We haven't created SixXS for nothing, if an ISP needs a service
| as said like above they can come to us and we will, in cooperation
| with them set it up. It is a whitelabel tunnelbroker system, no
| strings attached, nothing to pay, totally independent, open and
| certainly not restricted to europe. </spam>
| Jim Bound wrote:
| > Reason, if it is to continue then additional input to response
| > below would be actual deployment in process that is not waiting
| > on the multihome solution specifically Military and Telco
| > operations in the market and then there is the Moonv6 US Network
| > Pilot in process where 25 vendors are testing products as I type
| > this email. www.moonv6.com
| Neat to see such a project, a shame that I, and possibly others
| didn't know about it. Speaking of which, isn't there a single
| mailinglist/informationsource for finding such projects except
| for googling around ofcourse or checking hs247.com but that
| doesn't list it either...
| Måns Nilsson wrote:
| > The fix for this is 32-bit AS numbers. Those 35000 ASen will
| > suffice while we look at multihoming problems and routing table
| > growth.
| IPv4 is 32bits, are we going to do IPv4 between the ASN's then
| to keep the routing between ASN's up to scale? 32bit ASN's will
| also cause a lot of changes in amongst others BGP and internals
| of routers. IMHO I don't think that is the way to go. The way
| to go is find a good solution now, there is enough time.
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
| Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
| Comment: Jeroen Massar / firstname.lastname@example.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
| -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6