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

[Jim Reid]

On 5 Sep 2015, at 05:38, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:

> I'd like all TLD to have IPv6 name servers, so that the entire Internet
> is potentially reachable via IPv6.

I'd like a pony. :-)

While we'd all agree Shane that having IPv6 for every TLD would be a good thing, I think the optics are all wrong here.

Unless someone is operating a TLD in a way which is creating operational instability, it's simply none of our business how the DNS is run for that TLD. If IPv6 doesn't matter to some ccTLD's stakeholders, that's a matter for them and them alone to decide. We are not the protocol police. For some definition of "we".

An outreach programme (sponsored by ISOC?) might help. But if the TLD contacts can't be reached or don't respond, that won't work. Which brings us back to where we are today because nothing would have changed. I suggest we just get used to it. Those ccTLDs which don't yet have IPv6 will do so when their stakeholders decide this matters.

On the specifics of your mail,

1) ICANN has no role whatsoever in the operation of ccTLDs and should keep well away. It's out of scope and beyond ICANN's mission. In addition some of the countries you listed do not accept that ICANN should have a role in co-ordination of the Internet. I'm sure you can imagine how North Korea (say) would respond if ICANN told them how to run their ccTLD.

2) Pointing TLD operators at free DNS providers (with or without IPv6) is unwise. It sends the subliminal message that DNS for a TLD is not important. After all, you can get service for free, right? So there's no need to bother about maintaining up to date contact data or arranging an SLA or define trouble escalation procedures or do any of the other things that should be in place. Having a proper contract, even if it's just for a nominal sum, should sort out the sort of meta-issues that Anand hinted at.

[Yes, I'm a shameless hypocrite because I relied on free and undocumented best efforts DNS service for a few months from ISC and others when getting .so back on the Internet some years ago. So sue me.]

3) Naming and shaming the IPv6 laggards is not going to help and may well be counter productive.

4) Some of the ccTLDs you identified are struggling with far more serious problems. Like putting food on the table or keeping the lights on. IPv6 will be well down their list of priorities. Talking to them about IPv6 might come across as well-intentioned but out of touch first world neocolonianism.

An approach which might work is to contact these ccTLDs and say "You seem to be having problems. How can we help?". But if the contacts can't be reached or don't respond...