Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

Jordi,

On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for
both IPv4 and  
> IPv6,

Why?

The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending
the old  
protocol.  Even the way you ask for names is different (A
vs. AAAA).  
Why should anyone assume a one-to-one mapping between the
two  
Internets based on those protocols?

> they should not notice it.

They shouldn't, but they will.  Having had the fun of trying
to  
figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then realizing
it was  
because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and IPv6
routing ...  
changed), the current IPv6 infrastructure is, shall we say,
not quite  
production ready.

> And if there are issues (my experience is not that
one), we need to  
> know
> them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as
sooner as we  
> start, sooner
> we can sort it out, if required.

Forcing end users to be exposed to the pain of transition? 
This is  
the techno-geek mindset, not the critical communications  
infrastructure-geek mindset.  Guess which one is more
appropriate to  
the Internet today?

Rgds,
-drc

On 29 May 2007, at 5:22pm, David Conrad wrote:

[...]

>> they should not notice it.
>
> They shouldn't, but they will.  Having had the fun of
trying to  
> figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then
realizing it was  
> because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and
IPv6  
> routing ... changed), the current IPv6 infrastructure
is, shall we  
> say, not quite production ready.

They already do. This popped up in my feed reader today:


http://ask.metafilter.com/63532/Trouble-with-Firefox

it ends with this comment: "If your hosting provider is
serving your  
domain with IPv6, then it is time to find a new
provider."

Regards,

Leo

At 8:22 -0700 5/29/07, David Conrad wrote:
>Jordi,
>
>On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
>>  This is useless. Users need to use the same name
for both IPv4 and IPv6,
>
>Why?
>
>The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of
extending the old protocol.
>Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs.
AAAA). Why should anyone
>assume a one-to-one mapping between the two Internets
based on those 
>protocols?

I'll take a stab at "why?"

First - "the way you ask for names" is not
different at the 
application level, it is different in the "layer"
in which you find 
where to shoot packets.  It's like paying at a cash register
- you 
pay but by cash, charge, atm, ...

But why "need" - okay, need is a strong word, but,
if the user is 
coming from a search engine result page, the search engine
is going 
to hand a URL with a machine name.  The search engine
doesn't know if 
the user to service has a v6 pipe (or a v4 pipe even), so
the URL 
won't be customized for v4/v6.

If the user types in the domain label (like
"nanog") and the 
application then adds on TLDs and such, the application
would have to 
try the likely set of IPv6 labels to pre-pend.

As far as any other encoding of the name, whether IPv6 is
working is 
something that the encoder cannot know as the code will
probably be 
run from different points of the collective IP4 and IP6
network.

OTOH - in the presentation I gave in May '04 (three years
ago - and I 
didn't think it was pioneering even then, but who knew) I
did have 
some "gotchas" about using the same name.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                               
+1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.