The time has come: we must enable IPv6 entirely

Pool Development
104

Purely for information the outcome of some digging I did:

Re-reading what I believe to be the latest post by Ask on this topic, I understand that at that point in time, the following activities were on his to-do list:

  1. Get the new monitoring system up and running in production.
  2. “some features for managing the “vendor zones” so vendors can choose if/when they want to upgrade to “full IPv6””
  3. “change [the vendor zones] so the zones can be configured to fit the needs” of the vendors
  4. “related features for expediting how the vendor zones are managed”
  5. “get back to the original plan of making IPv6 the default in all country zones where it makes sense”

Item 1 is done now.

Not on the list at the time, and also done by now, were the features for user information download and user deletion.

I guess the mention of “where it makes sense” in item 5 complements that “some choices [are] to be made around backfilling zones from the region versus not providing AAAA records vs giving out (too) few IPs”. I.e., enabling IPv6 seems not as straight-forward as “just” adding a few digits in the code if some of the issues that exist with the IPv4 zones are to be avoided, if possible, for IPv6.

I guess the server points feature would serve to better understand the traffic for IPv6 as well for informing the aforementioned choices to be made, not just the redesign of the zone concept itself. This server points feature also wasn’t on the list above, at least not explicitly (maybe subsumed somewhere else).

Then, as he previously mentioned at several other occasions as well, Ask’s “time on the project mostly goes to basic care and feeding of the system”, assumedly leaving only the lesser part of his time for major developments, e.g., new features/major enhancements.

So that might shed some light on what is going on with respect to this feature.

Note that this is just my interpretation of available information, his list may obviously have changed further since then, apart from the additions I mention (and possibly others I missed).

Again, this just informatively, as is, not taking any stance on the items, or judging them.

Except that I’d obviously like to see IPv6 enabled on more zones, while at the same time understanding Ask’s constraints and priorities, including keeping the system operationally stable.

EDIT: The server verification feature is another one missing from the list.

1 Like