[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers

"JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> writes:

Jordi,

> I agree in general with all your points, but I've seen already a
> couple of situations where someone was asking me for a IPv6-only
> network, and the lack of IPv6 in the root server created a problem,
> that of course has been solved hosting the DNS somewhere else (even
> if IPv4 was not used !).

Yes, I hear from those folks too. And my guess is that if they *did*
(or rather when they do) get v6 transport to the roots they would in
some cases shut off v4 and thereby shoot themselves in the foot.

This has been used as an argument *against* v6 transport to the roots
since as long as they need v4 lookup capability to reach the roots
they will get the other 40M+ zones that are only availably over v4
transport too. I.e. since they are forced to do v4 to reach the roots
they do see the entire tree rather than just the lame stump with five
broken twigs on it.

However, my personal view (since about the Atlanta IETF I think) is
that it is probably better with a spectacular failure in the face of
people who turn off v4 lookup capability entirely when the roots get
v6 transport than to wait a long time (until larger parts of the tree
are dual stack). The reason is that the failure modes will then be
much more subtle.

And therefore I believe that v6 glue for the roots would be a good thing.

> I can't provide more details, but there are real cases.

I know they are.

Johan Ihrén
Autonomica