> :: Solve it in the browser, which is well-placed to know if there > :: really is connectivity and can even determine if IPv6 (or IPv4) > :: is temporarily broken or abnormally slow: > :: > :: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01 > :: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-tran-announce-dns-00 > :: > :: -d > > I will completely agree with you that this is where the > problem *should* > be solved. However, we are about 5 years (if not more) too > late in solving > it that way if we wanted to deploy ipv6 right now -- that is > what we are > trying to address. Hell, IE6 still makes up close to 18% of > all users out > there despite everybody trying to deprecate that browser, and the > percentage of ipv6 capable users is roughly the same as the > percentage of > windows 98 users out there (0.3%)...
Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser is shipped by Microsoft. And the two drafts cited above are not solely useful for IPv6 transition. Many are pining for another transition -- from TCP to SCTP -- which shares a lot of characteristics and user-experience problems with the IPv6 transition. (Worse, in some instances; better in other instances.) > So, given that clearly users don't > update their software often enough, it is too late to fix the > applications > that are already deployed on users PCs (and their broken home > gateways/firewalls/etc), so, what do we do *right now*, to get those > "broken users" through the next 3-5 years till they upgrade? Those users will continue to run IPv4 for the next 3-5 years and will not do anything with IPv6 even if their ISP offered them IPv6. > Now, we should absolutely get the software fixed to stop > breakage going > forward, but, we still have to address the currently broken users. > > I *hate* doing this in DNS, but, I don't see another way to > effect change > fast (let's face it, ISP's are much more likely to roll out a > new version > of bind/powerdns/secure64/whatnot then users updating their PCs/home > gateways/whatnot in a short timeframe). Is there a better > way? If not, and > something will have to "take one for the team" to make IPv6 > work without > breaking IPv4, is there anything other then DNS that would be > a better candidate, with a deployment horizon of under a year? It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which purposefully breaks AAAA responses (returns empty answer), and to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which functions normally. Advanced IPv4-only users wanting to do AAAA queries (e.g., Teredo users, 6to4 users, etc.) should be sufficiently advanced to point themselves at the ISP's normal nameserver or a public DNS server on the Internet (e.g., Hurricane Electric's, Google's, etc.). That won't affect users running uTorrent (which uses Teredo to provide IPv6 connectivity) because it doesn't do AAAA queries to find peers. -d _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
