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

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at icann.org
Mon Sep 7 14:41:42 UTC 2015

On 9/7/15, 3:22 AM, "dns-operations on behalf of Jim Reid"
<dns-operations-bounces at dns-oarc.net on behalf of jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>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".

A huge +1 here.

>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.

And here.

>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
>[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

And there too. Everywhere, really, other than the pony part.

--Paul Hoffman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20150907/2cea501f/attachment.bin>

More information about the dns-operations mailing list