[dns-operations] Missing .us and GTLD records??
rbf+dns-operations at panix.com
Wed May 19 22:07:02 UTC 2010
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 05:03:53PM -0400, Luis Uribarri wrote:
> Now I'm a bit confused, if "J" was also a member of an IPv4 anycast
> cloud, why not publish it?
I think the point is that the physical server to which "J" points is
also pointed to by A, B, C, I, or K (one or more of whose A record
points to an anycast IP address.)
So, for example, "B" has an A record of an anycast address pointing at
servers 1, 2, 3, and 4. But Server 4 has native IPv6 connectivity. So
"J" was created with an AAAA record of the IPv6 address of Server 4.
> And if that can't be done, just pubish the
> same IPv4 as one of the other working letters.
You seem to be suggesting that 6 server names, with A,B,C,I,K all
having a different IPv4 address, and J having the same IPv4 address as
A, is better than A,B,C,I,K all having a different IPv4 address, and J
not having any IPv4 address at all. Is that an accurate summary of
your position? If so, why do you think that is the case? Either way,
you've got 5 IPv4 addresses to use. (And, with some clients, having
two server names with the same IPv4 address might cause inefficiencies
if server status tracking is done by name rather than IP address.)
> I know it will be a very very long time before I (and the majority of
> the internet) can talk IPv6 natively. Is our punishment for that to be
> cut off from "J".
If "J" didn't exist, you wouldn't be objecting. So your position seems
to be that you believe that 5 servers, all of which have IPv4
connectivity, is better than 6 servers, 5 of which have IPv4
connectivity. Is that an accurate summary of your position? If so,
why do you believe that having J be IPv6 only is worse than J not
existing at all?
More information about the dns-operations