-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/23/2010 05:42, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand >> <st...@ibctech.ca> wrote: >>> - in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the >>> authoritative name servers >>> >>> - both of these servers *only* have IPv6 addresses >> >> Which seems a bit far afield from reality to me. Yes, there are >> lots of folks with IPv6 connectivity and v4-only recursive DNS >> servers. I don't think ISPs will have problems setting aside a >> handful of IPv4 addresses for authoritative DNS infrastructure to >> work around this until v6 transport in recursive DNS servers is >> common enough. > > Not really, having your nameservers be IPv6 enabled is a reasonable > thing to do. > > FYI: on comcast I see SERVFAIL, meaning their recursives do not > have IPv6 transport. > > (I know we have that at my employer on our customer-facing > recursives). > > ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> any www.onlyv6.com. ;; global > options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: > SERVFAIL, id: 54773 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, > AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.onlyv6.com. IN ANY > > ;; Query time: 1605 msec ;; SERVER: 68.87.72.130#53(68.87.72.130) > ;; WHEN: Fri Apr 23 08:41:08 2010 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 32 > > You'll see a lot of this. I've done my own little tests on a few friends' systems, and on public wifi, etc, establishing some sort of IPv6 connectivity, and trying to resolve a subdomaiin of mine with a IPv6 only DNS server. Many ISP recursive NS don't have IPv6 transport yet, so they choke getting to my NS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkvRnmUACgkQ2fXFxl4S7sTfJwCfaKEB8juoXkHsgX7N+F+HNrEC PDwAoJm+Hn8NhBi6LKcX00T9JTEA35ma =nzM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----