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

[Mathew J. Newton]

On Mon, January 11, 2010 8:33 pm, Matthew Pounsett wrote:

> 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.

Thanks Matt for your (and others) continued help with this - it is much
appreciated.

> 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.

I will do eventually. Given this is just for personal use/experimentation
I may get one of the free DNS providers to act as a secondary.

> 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.

I did think that, but then I can force them to use my server (using the @
option) and they resolve quite happily. It seems to be somewhere between
the .org and server and mine that they have trouble with!

> 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.

That's good to know - I thought I was trying to do something that was
fundamentally forbidden!

Mathew