On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Matthew Pounsett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Sep 24, 2014, at 21:27 , Davey Song <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, I‘m recently doing a little survey on the penetration of > IPv6 in DNS system and it's latent problems. > >> > >> I find that top websites like Google, Wikipedia,Yahoo already support > IPv6 access, but its name servers are still IPv4-only. I'm wondering why? > is there any operation consideration or risk in their IPv6 deployment? > > > > There is additional operational complexity in running a dual-stack > network, which implies some risk, but in my opinion it’s not serious enough > to be a real blocker for most networks. Some companies may have legacy > assumptions in their application that makes adding IPv6 difficult in some > way, but from the outside it’s impossible to identify who those networks > might be. > > > > Some large companies simply have their own inertia to overcome. It can > take a while to get large re-engineering projects moving in larger > companies, and they may need/want to wait until the infrastructure is in > place everywhere before turning it on anywhere. > > > > It’s a little weird to me that google’s authoritative DNS servers are > not addressable over v6. Their Google Public DNS service does operate over > v6, so clearly they have the infrastructure in place. > > Google has been focusing on IPv6 for the user first -- for example, > the Google Public DNS stuff, the web interface, etc. Obviously enough, > this involved a bunch of infrastructure work... > > For the auth nameservers -- there is work underway, and, AFAIK, there > should measurement of the impact of v6 glue soon. > > Thanks for your explanation and comments, Warren and Matthew. Glad to hear some work underway to make a fully IPv6 connected Internet. I once take it for granted that the increasing IPv6 traffic WorldWide is based on IPv6 end-to-end (both IP/DNS layer) capability and independent on IPv4 infrastructure. Now I realize it is not so optimistic. This is not a risk free operation -- there are name-servers out there > that believe that they have working v6, but don't, and also places > where the v6 latency differs from the v4 latency. Measuring and > understanding all the implications before flipping the big switch is > important.... > > > I’m speculating, but perhaps there are bits of their internal CDN-like > behaviour that still need to be modified. > > > > In short, no there are no generally applicable technical reasons not to > be running v6 on your DNS servers. > > W > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dns-operations mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > > dns-jobs mailing list > > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
