Say "Thank you" to Bill...

[Max Tulyev]

Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> So the problem now is enabling V6 for hosting will hurt the service. It
>> is really VERY bad thing.
> Then very simple: DON'T DO IT!

And how to migrate to V6 without anything inside V6 space?

People are using Internet not for good connectivity, new protocols,
technologies, pings, traceroures, QoS - but for accessing THE CONTENT.

> That is your choice as a network administrator. But what you can do is
> be ready to just slap the AAAA into DNS. What you can also do is provide
> for instance a www.ipv6.<domain>.<tld> to provide IPv6 connectivity.
> Also when a customer asks for it, then explain them what possible issues
> you think can occur and then enable it if they still want it.

Yes, it is beautiful for cool testing. But not for production use and
real V6 migration.

>> I understand well Bill's and TheBigBrother's(tm) main idea: to make
>> traffic flow through their servers at least part, at least for a while.
> 
> Which traffic will flow through their servers!?
> Please read up on what Teredo actually is...

Your V6 traffic incapsulated to V4 going to Teredo servers. Isn't it?

>> But - they really did a bad thing for V6: they made V6 enabled hosting
>> unusable in production :(
> No, stupid "administrators" dropping packets on the floor did this.

The sum of intellect in the Earth is the constant. But population is
growing fast... ;)

> Also, clearly you received reports about these problems, thus you know
> which sites are affected, contact them and resolve it.

No. It is so if it is mine site like me and dog photo collection.

But production hosting users says: "OH!!! We are loosing our clients!!!
Our site is not visible while [...] site hosted on another hosting is!!!
That's YOUR HOSTING problem!!!"

And they are right.

So the constructive question is how can I avoid these complaints without
shutting down V6 connectivity?

-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)