[dns-dir] Fwd: [V6providers] Question on order of IPv6 website rollout

Possibly relevant for the opsec discussion.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Rob Torres <Rob.Torres@hughes.com>
> Subject: [V6providers] Question on order of IPv6 website rollout
> Date: July 9, 2013 3:40:19 PM GMT+02:00
> To: "v6providers@test-ipv6.com" <v6providers@test-ipv6.com>
> 
> If this has been covered before, please feel free to redirect me to an older
> thread.
> 
> Some websites seem to have the strategy when rolling out IPv6 to first
> advertise a AAAA before their website is IPv6 capable.  Then after some time,
> they turn on IPv6 on their servers.  If fact, we've seen some cases where this
> is done only for port 80 and not port 443.
> 
> Is there a recommendation for the order in which this sort of rollout is
> done?
> 
> When there is a valid AAAA returned, it at least delays the loading of the
> webpage (depending on many factors and different implementations) before
> fallback to IPv4.
> 
> As a satellite internet provider, we are obviously very sensitive to
> additional roundtrips before a webpage is painted. As a general internet
> provider we are sensitive to pages that break and are blamed on our transport.
> Ignorantly, it would seem that making the website IPv6 capable first and
> testing with local name-IP resolutions before advertising the AAAA would be a
> better rollout order.  Is there a downside to this approach?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Rob Torres
> _______________________________________________
> V6providers mailing list
> V6providers@test-ipv6.com
> http://lists.test-ipv6.com/mailman/listinfo/v6providers
> http://archives.test-ipv6.com/v6providers 