Is an IPv6-only glue/delegation record a problem in a world of IPv4?

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 2010/01/11, at 12:29, Mathew J. Newton wrote:

> Specifically, the Dig tool at http://www.kloth.net/services/dig.php seems
> unable to resolve my records and I can't help but feel it's a problem at
> my end rather than theirs!

The problem may be at Kloth.. but at least one of the many possible problems they might be having could be corrected by a slightly different configuration at your end.

According to RFC you must have at least two name servers on different networks for each delegation.  I interpret this as two name servers *per address protocol* that you want to support.  So, if you want to support queries from the v4 Internet (there may be reasons you don't) then you should have at least two name servers responding to queries over v4.

Koth may be having network trouble on v4 which prevents them from getting at 77.103.161.0/24.  If that is the problem, a second v4 name server in a different subnet (at a different site) might present them with a path to a name server that can answer their query.  This is the reason why there is a redundancy requirement in the RFC.


That said.. there is nothing wrong with a name server that only answers using one address protocol or the other.  And there is functional precedent in infrastructure for name servers that are only on v6.  j.gtld.biz, which is authoritative for the us. zone only has a v6 address.  While this occasionally confuses an operator here and there, the DNS likes it just fine.

Matt