On 21 Jul, 2004, at 11:50, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 10:11 AM +0100 2004-07-21, Jim Reid wrote:
Personally, I don't see why you care about the RTT to a root server. A well-behaved name server will make 4-5 queries to a root server once a week or so. Why optimise that? Please note I'm not suggesting that it's OK for root servers to have lousy RTTs. My name server is in regular, frequent contact with other name servers that have RTTs longer than 200ms.
Well, I'm not an IPv6 expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the impression I got was that if you were IPv6-only, and all the root nameservers you can reach via IPv6 are routed via highly undesirable paths, then you would be in a pretty bad situation. It's fine for some of those IPv6 addresses to be non-production or very sub-optimally routed, but I think the problem comes from when that happens to all of them.
At least, that was my take.
Well, what other choice is there? :-) And anyway, since the overwhelming bulk of the world's name servers are IPv4-only, resolution over IPv6 doesn't seem to be a particularly productive exercise.
True enough.
True enough for what subset of users? If the a user is interested in only a few and those provide the service that user needs and uses, what does he/she care about a million servers out there? The problem here is that this initial missing link does not enable a user that could be IPv6 only and live without a NAT, to do so. It is this lack of enabling that is the problem from my point of view. Joao