[dns-operations] Enabling the IPv6-only Internet: the Final TLDs
frnkblk at iname.com
Mon Sep 7 17:52:19 UTC 2015
I'm not sure how shining a light on the connectivity gap is a problem.
Perhaps you feel IPv6 is not important for the future of the Internet?
Now that Shane has identified the ccTLDs without IPv6 connectivity those who
have a relationship with them can start to have the conversation you end
your email with.
From: dns-operations [mailto:dns-operations-bounces at dns-oarc.net] On Behalf
Of Jim Reid
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 5:23 AM
To: Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
Cc: dns-operations at dns-oarc.net
Subject: Re: [dns-operations] Enabling the IPv6-only Internet: the Final
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
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...
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
dns-jobs mailing list
More information about the dns-operations