v6 naming and shaming - *.europa.eu

[Tim Chown]

Hi Phil,

> On 18 May 2016, at 14:52, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 18/05/16 14:29, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
>> Really, you cannot keep on telling people to finally deploy IPv6, it
>> does not have any effect whatsoever, only their pocket books care and
>> those will only notice when it is too late...
> 
> So it's hopeless and we should just give up?
> 
> That doesn't seem like the most encouraging advice ever, but thanks for the reply.
> 
> Anyone else got thoughts on how to discourage half-working/half-broken setups which create negative externalities?
> 
> I'm specifically not asking about encouraging people who haven't deployed; rather people who have and who have broken or abandoned their efforts.

Well, a not uncommon approach to discourage bad behaviour is to create an appropriate blacklist where offenders are added when such behaviour is observed, so that people can choose to use the blacklist, if they trust its contents. Who would run such a thing is another question, and is whether it blacklisted the broken v6 site version or both protocols. But perhaps some public ‘wall of shame’ might be a step towards that. The first question is how/whether you would detect / report such offenders in the first place; I would also hope cases are very rare.

I would expect many of the general v6 connectivity problems to go unnoticed due to happy eyeballs, but your example is obviously more nuanced because you do get something returned, but it’s junk, and I agree very frustrating.

Tim