Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

From: Bernhard Schmidt (no email)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2007 - 09:41:08 EDT

  • Next message: Paul Vixie: "Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted"

    Nathan Ward <> wrote:

    > The other mode would be to set up and have
    > customers use that for whatever protocol they send/receive mail with,
    > and not point an MX at an AAAA for the time being.

    Actually I would do it the other way around, adding AAAA to the MX set
    is rather painless, as only full-blown MTAs with well-defined fallback
    procedures (and without a user sitting in front of it wondering why the
    hell it is so slow) use it anyway. Traffic won't be high, I think you
    won't need an LB from day 0, one server should be sufficient for current
    traffic (and if not, you can always add multiple AAAA records).

    Enabling IPv6 on customer-facing services is harder, as you will almost
    certainly run into some broken client. A dedicated hostname for tests is
    good, but that won't help you find the people that are completely
    unaware of the existence of IP at all, but somehow got a broken IPv6
    stack installed (old Linux kernels with on-link assumption for example).


  • Next message: Paul Vixie: "Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD