[v6OPS] Toward more sensible whitelisting
benchoff at vt.edu
Tue Jun 14 14:56:39 CEST 2011
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 06:54:32PM -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
> Separate namespaces (e.g., "ipv6.example.com") are bad. That user,
> who is using the IPv6 namespace, will eventually share content
> via email (cutting and pasting the URL) or on a social network via
> a "share on <social_network>" button.
> But that shared content won't work with the other 99.mumble% of the
> Internet population, who are IPv4 only. People will complain. Users
> will be unhappy, including the IPv6-friendly user that opted into the
> IPv6 website in the first place. And IPv6 will be blamed -- afterall,
> "ipv6" name will be right there in the URL (or "ip6", or whatever
> that website chose).
Right now www.ipv6.example.com usually just has an AAAA. If it had
both A and AAAA, forwarded content would work for most recipients.
I probably should have said www.ipv6and4.example.com. :-)
The set of users who have a problem will be the ones with broken IPv6
(the same ones who would have problems if the main site ware dual stack)
times the probability of receiving a link from someone with working IPv6.
As someone else pointed out, if the sharing involves some code rather
than just cut and paste of a URL, the URL could be fixed in the process.
This does put another to-do in the provider column: provide a name
for your site with both A and AAAA records. I almost never to remember
to fix www.v6.facebook.com links when I forward them.
More information about the ipv6-ops