-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [aggregated mail :)]
Mohsen Souissi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote: <SNIP> > | Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very public. > > ==> AFNIC (French Registry) has been running an official IPv6-capable > name server (ns3.nic.fr) Yup, indeed, sorry I forgot, you have been running it and shouting about for some time already :) But did they put your AAAA as glue in the root already? $ dig @e.root-servers.net ns3.nic.fr any ;; ANSWER SECTION: ns3.nic.fr. 172800 IN A 192.134.0.49 There are quite a lot of deployments who run IPv6 transport capable dns servers, but as long as they are not bound into the root it has little to no sense. > | We have www.rs.net providing this for some time, but unfortunatly > | it has some issues: it doesn't allow 'access' to non-IPv6 capable > | domains and there isn't a european part of that deployment; yet, I > | understood. > > ==> Sounds ver strange... FR zone (it is a European for instance) has > been connected to rs.net (formerly OTDR) for more than one year > now. Both ns[12].dnssec.nic.fr (which are authoritative for FR zone in > rs.net testbed) support both IPv4 and IPv6 transport... Indeed, for .fr but not for the root :( What I meant to say that if you use the "IPv6 root" and try to resolve a domain that only has IPv4 DNS servers, eg .com, currently it works again: com. 518400 IN NS COM-A.ip4.int. COM-A.ip4.int. 518400 IN AAAA <SNIP> But it is flaky and doesn't always work unfortunatly. The not-work part also has to do with the fact that all these servers reside in the US and not in Europe. I understood that Daniel Karrenberg was working on that part though... Soohong Daniel Park wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > So kick your ISP, access and hosting, to get doing IPv6 and > > if the access to that ISP can't provide native IPv6 ask them > > to set up a tunnelbroker system, 6to4 relay etc for solving > > that problem. > > I guess it is one of v6ops role > ISP design team is trying to propose a valuable thing for us.... <spam> We haven't created SixXS for nothing, if an ISP needs a service as said like above they can come to us and we will, in cooperation with them set it up. It is a whitelabel tunnelbroker system, no strings attached, nothing to pay, totally independent, open and certainly not restricted to europe. </spam> Jim Bound wrote: > Reason, if it is to continue then additional input to response > below would be actual deployment in process that is not waiting > on the multihome solution specifically Military and Telco > operations in the market and then there is the Moonv6 US Network > Pilot in process where 25 vendors are testing products as I type > this email. www.moonv6.com Neat to see such a project, a shame that I, and possibly others didn't know about it. Speaking of which, isn't there a single mailinglist/informationsource for finding such projects except for googling around ofcourse or checking hs247.com but that doesn't list it either... Måns Nilsson wrote: > The fix for this is 32-bit AS numbers. Those 35000 ASen will > suffice while we look at multihoming problems and routing table > growth. IPv4 is 32bits, are we going to do IPv4 between the ASN's then to keep the routing between ASN's up to scale? 32bit ASN's will also cause a lot of changes in amongst others BGP and internals of routers. IMHO I don't think that is the way to go. The way to go is find a good solution now, there is enough time. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP41nMCmqKFIzPnwjEQL/mQCfaID56o60Hj3llkHpap4IFIXaLG8An2Xg YKMZFgtI/iB3eIdSAr3sjj2i =s1vg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
