[dns-operations] Enabling the IPv6-only Internet: the Final TLDs

Shane Kerr shane at time-travellers.org
Sun Sep 6 06:19:28 UTC 2015


On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:33:10 -0600
"Paul Hoffman" <phoffman at proper.com> wrote:

> On 4 Sep 2015, at 22:38, Shane Kerr wrote:
> > All of the remaining non-IPv6 TLD are ccTLD. Except for .MIL, of 
> > course.
> > ($600 billion in the 2015 US military budget and we can't sort out a
> > freaking IPv6 address.)
> If all it took to have an IPv6 name server was an IPv6 address, this 
> would be true. We all know that's not the case, and that running v6 
> operations in a reliable manner takes work. Please don't trivialize the 
> effort it takes to also run a stable v6 host for an operator who still 
> doesn't see much need for v6. The job is not to convince the remaining 
> TLDs is a no-brainer, it is to help them with the challenges that have 
> prevented them from doing this already.

I admit that if you want to run your own IPv6 network then it is a lot
more work than if you are willing to let someone else run it. This is
especially true if you are in a country with governmental policies or
monopoly ISP which either forbid various network connections or make it
prohibitively expensive.

Scanning the list of TLD without IPv6 service, I don't think that most
of them are likely in a position of not being willing to let someone
else secondary them, although certainly it is true for some.

I hope that if it gets down to one or two holdouts that embarrassment
will force them to sort it out. (Fans of irony will be hoping the
holdouts are .MIL and North Korea.)



More information about the dns-operations mailing list