On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 06:04:54PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Tore Anderson > > > My assumption is that if the amount of IPv6 servers in the country's > > pool is larger than the amount of IPv6 users in the country, it must > > surely be safe to return any AAAAs for that country's .pool.ntp.org. > > > > Turns out there's only one country that has a larger deployment of IPv6 > > users than IPv6 members in its pool.ntp.org, and that's Belgium. In > > be.pool.ntp.org there are 16 IPv4 servers and 5 IPv6 servers, so the > > latter constitute 23.81% of the total. The amount of IPv6-enabled users > > is greater: 30.28%. > > On the other hand, I think enabling AAAAs for be.pool.ntp.org would > also cause a net benefit. Assuming that all of the 30.28% IPv6-enabled > users in Belgium are also IPv4-capable, they now are sharing the 16 > IPv4 servers in be.pool.ntp.org with the 69.72% non-IPv6-enabled users.
Most of those IPv6-enabled users in .be are by large providers offering IPv6. They all should also have IPv4 as far as I know. > So in summary I think it seems safe to returning AAAAs for every single > country-specific pool.ntp.org zone, Belgium's included. I agree. And not only country-specific zones. Kurt _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
