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

[Shane Kerr]

Jim (and Paul and Ed and all the other naysayers),

I really didn't feel like responding to any of the negative e-mails.
But I kind of feel like I have to. This will be my first and last
e-mail responding to negative feedback. (Hopefully I can stick to
that.)

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:22:57 +0100
Jim Reid <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.

Re-reading my message...

"Anyway, I am hoping for ideas on how to solve this."

"Anyway, if you know someone involved with any non-IPv6 TLD, please let
me know and/or explain the wonders of IPv6 to them. Thanks!"

I'm not sure how this translates into:

> 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".

Trying to tell people how to run their DNS.

I also disagree with your assertion that:
 
> 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.

We should just "get used to it".

> 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.

Again, I'm not sure why you think that I or anyone else has suggested
that someone is telling people how to run their TLD (which I note has
migrated into ccTLD at some point in your mail).

My question about ICANN was mostly because I assume that ICANN has
better contact with TLD operators than anyone else, and that they may
have technical resources to advise or assist them.

On further reflection though, I think it was a mistake for ICANN to not
require IPv6 for the IDN TLD. (I think those will all get fixed soon
though, so it is probably not a long-standing problem.)

> 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.]

I'm sorry that you feel that people offering high-quality, free service
as a public good is damaging to the world. Having worked for four
organizations in the past that help TLD registries for free (RIPE NCC,
ISC, Afilias, and Dyn), I disagree with this. Note also that ISC,
Afilias, and Dyn also charge money in some cases for this service, and
Afilias and Dyn are for-profit DNS companies.

But even if you are right that free DNS is bad, who are you to tell
people how to run their DNS? ;)

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

It's possible.

OTOH not all peer pressure is bad. There's a lot of "keeping up with
the Joneses" between ccTLD operators, and for the most part it has been
beneficial. Some of this is surely driven by demand from registrars or
other constituents. Some is also just wanting to replicate best
practices. But some is also just pride - and that's not necessarily bad.
 
> 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.

I guess you mean "neocolonialism", which I had to look up. It's an
interesting theoretical problem.

My proposal is "try to do something to help". You idea is that this is
wrong, and therefore we should... not?

> 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...

As I mentioned in my initial e-mail, that's what I tried to do. Now
I am trying to see if there are people who have better contacts (there
are) or if people have other ideas (they do).

I hope the result of this poking may be 4 or 5 TLD which turn on IPv6
in short order. Sorry for all the unhappiness this has caused you.

Cheers,

--
Shane