Facebook over IPv6

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:28:55PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> What technical reason is there that you would run separate IPv4 and
> IPv6 DNS servers?  The server software can do it so the only reason
> they would stick that requirement in there is redundancy.

What they want is

 "your unsuspecting IPv4 users only get google-over-v4"  (Resolver 1)

and 

 "those users that actually have IPv6 connectivity use Resolver *2*, and
  that resolver bring you google-over-v6".

If you look from their point of view "if most of your userbase doesn't 
have v6 yet, giving you v6 records will not do any good, but might do
harm" it makes sense.

Auto-Provisioning of the CPEs could be used to give "the correct" resolver
address to your customers, depending on what service they get.

> And when you virtualize or whatever, you lose the redundancy.  Thus
> to me your "cheating" and going against the meaning of the Google
> requirements.

Redundancy is not the goal here.

Personally, I think they should just go forward with IPv6 and stop the
whitelisting project [or be more liberal about it, and implement an 
automatic mechanism to get resolvers whitelisted] - but then, we do not
operate a global network, and I have no real idea about the amount of
IPv6 brokenness in non-european networks.  So there might be indeed
good reasons to be a bit more reluctant on "global IPv6 turn on".

OTOH, they *could* do it "by region"...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279