Facebook over IPv6

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Sun Jun 12 01:16:32 CEST 2011

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:59:40 -0700
Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:

> On 6/11/2011 11:51 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Just a hypothetical question for you:
> >
> > If everyone on the list agrees
> I don't think everyone on the list agrees with you. In fact, I haven't 
> seen evidence that anyone agrees with you.

I certainly don't. If Google just switched on IPv6, the ISP customers
that have trouble won't call Google, they'll call their ISP. Google's
whitelisting is purely about helping ISPs - giving them and their
customers an opt-in ability to test IPv6 without triggering a number of
calls to their helpdesk for those customers who don't want to
participate. It is of course regrettable that there has to be
conditional providing of an IPv6 service, however as a transitional
step it is fine. It is nothing more than the principle of least
surprise for ISPs and both their IPv6 interested and
non-interested customers.

As for whether that sort of thing happened on IPv6 day, it did at least
once. As that customer chose to go through a public discussion
forum rather than ring the ISP's helpdesk, we won't know how many
customers had the similar issue and contacted the ISP's helpdesk.


 I have seen several people 
> try to, as politely as possible, get you to look at the situation from 
> google's perspective in the hopes that you'll see that you're being less 
> than completely rational about it.
> Since that's out of character for 
> you, I've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but ...
> > that the waterboarding people is bad and
> > nobody speaks up, then why wouldn't the Bush administration believe that
> > everyone isn't all peachy keen with it?
> >
> > Substitute "whitlisting IPv6" for "waterboarding people" and "Google"
> > for "the Bush administration" and I think you get my point.
> This is simply absurd. You're arguing rather vehemently for "my network, 
> my rules," while at the same time attempting to deny google the same 
> ability.
> They have made their perspective and reasoning clear on this topic, and 
> in spite of many of us disagreeing with them (and more than a few of us 
> attempting to change their minds) they are steadfast.
> So, let's move on.
> Doug
> -- 
> 	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
> 			-- OK Go
> 	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
> 	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list