Imagine #2 (musings on the topic of proxies)

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2010-05-14 13:02, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:59:11PM +0200, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
>> 1) Joe Sixpack hosts hosts the website www.foobar.example.com at
>> FooHosters. He would like to experiment with making it available via
>> IPv6, but FooHosters do not provide the IPv6 yet.
>
> I'm actually a bit sceptical about the political message of something
> like this.  It sends the message to FooHosters "well, you don't need
> to bother with IPv6, we'll work around your lazyness".
>
> I think the right message to send to FooHosters is "either you provide
> IPv6 to my server in the next 6 weeks, or I move to BarHosters, who
> already have IPv6 in their product offerings!"
>
> Much better political message, and much less trying to fix broken business
> processes with technical measures (inevitably leading to broken business
> processes *and* broken networks).

I agree. Heck for that matter, which might sounds strange coming from 
me, but I am against folks setting up tunnels to their hosted machines 
and then putting their website etc online that way.

Yes, it solves the problem that you want to experiment with IPv6 at the 
moment, but unless you annoy the ISP you are really hosting at regularly 
they will not be moving to get you IPv6 service any time soon.

Also, as Gert mentions, depending on external hosts for your 
connectivity is a rather bad idea, which is so for tunnels to a static 
host, but more in the case of anycast, as you do not know who is going 
to be sitting at the end of the tunnel and if they can resolve things, 
heck if you can contact them. At least in the case of non-anycasted 
endpoints you know who to contact for any problems it might give.

Thus: keep on complaining to your el-cheapo hosters and move to another 
if you really want, voting with your money is the way to go.

Greets,
  Jeroen