Discuss mailing list

[Niels Dettenbach <nd AT syndicat.com>]

Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012, 01:14:43 schrieb Jeff Taylor:
> I'm still trying to figure out what the best practice might be for IPv6
> servers... Do we go off of the server location, or the tunnel location? 

hmmm,
we - for example - have native IPv6 on our locations and will launch OpenNIC 
ip6 servers shortly.

I think it hardly makes sense to mark tunneled IPv6 as such, but on the other 
hand it makes no sense to not use the location of the server as the server 
location is i.e. fundamental for i.e. law questions etc. and - migrated to 
IPv4 or native IPv6 using "the publix end of the funnel as location is 
comparable to publishing the AS router(s) locations. ;)

For different reasons it is more important to mark tunneled IPv6 uplinked 
servers as such - even but not only latencies.

But this is just my view.


> When choosing low ping times, the tunnel location may be more accurate,
> but I have not done any testing to determine this.
Geografical locations are just a minor parameter for expected or real 
latencies.

btw:
The easiest to handle geocoordinate format in OSM / OL maps / modern GIS 
should be WGS84 decimal - i.e. 10.123 lon / 42.123 lat.



best regards,


Niels.


-- 
 ---
 Niels Dettenbach
 Syndicat IT & Internet
 http://www.syndicat.com
 PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc
 ---

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.