Hello all,
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network
Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains.
He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their
sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know
if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for
supporting AAAA's.
It's ok to contact me privately.
regards
Carlos
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network
Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains.
He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their
sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know
if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for
supporting AAAA's.
I've had them set up in the past by e-mailing IPV6Req@networksolutions.com.
Hi Carlos,
You are right... I just entered with my account and after I clicked
"Edit DNS" there is a dialog box which says:
"Advanced Users:
To specify your IPv6 name server address (IPv6 glue record), e-mail us
the domain name, the host name of the name server(s), and their IPv6
address(es)."
See you,
Alejandro,
And they need to do anyway, if they want to keep the contract:
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=8494
Regards,
Jordi
Yup... I was reading the same page myself. Pretty sad.
My friend just forwarded me the response from NSI Support. Incredibly
lame. I'm tempted to share it here, but my good twin told me not to.
I'm recommending they switch registrars.
regards,
Carlos
And they need to do anyway, if they want to keep the contract:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6. I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6, and it's a very limited list. I'm currently using Pairnic, and I am happy with them, mostly, but moving to IPv6 is painful.
To quote:
We don't have a customer interface for IPv6 glue records on name servers.
However, we can manually set them up if you can send us the information
for the records.
That's probably okay for me, but it's really not conducive to any large scale operation. It needs to be run-of-the-mill, and not esoteric, to move it forward.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other
DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
regards
Carlos
Once upon a time, Lynda <shrdlu@deaddrop.org> said:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6.
I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create
glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6,
and it's a very limited list. I'm currently using Pairnic, and I am
happy with them, mostly, but moving to IPv6 is painful.
The same problem exists for DNSSEC; the number of registrars that
support both IPv6 glue and DNSSEC in their standard interfaces is
unfortunately small.
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards,
-drc
True story, although Pairnic makes that one easy. I just wish they'd put up an automated interface for IPv6, but I'm happy they support it, at least.
My favorite place to look for support for both is here:
http://www.sixxs.net/faq/dns/?faq=ipv6glue
No surprise to either of us that the column for DNSSEC is filled with yellow. 
In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
The same problem exists for DNSSEC; the number of registrars that
support both IPv6 glue and DNSSEC in their standard interfaces is
unfortunately small.
joker.com supports both, and has a very nice web interface to do all the
work.
If your current provider doesn't support both you need to vote with your
dollars. There are a dozen or more choices with good IPv6 and DNSSEC
support.
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some
disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names.
Regards,
.as
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees.
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names.
Regards,
.as
I am not taking about a big imaginary company. I am taking about NSI and this specific case.
Regards,
as
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because
it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that
code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions,
updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for
my names.
Not having ipv6 and your website availability tied to some overloaded cgn
at an ISP you have no relationship with .... or your abuse policy just
blocked what you thought was a /24 ... turns out to be verizon nat44 space
for nyc ... and now x million customers can't click "buy now" ....
priceless.
CB
Regards,
.as>
>
>> I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
>> little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
>> 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
>> I think I'm exaggerating.
>>
>> If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some
>> disclaimer.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
>>>> system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other
>>>> DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
>>>
>>> Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code,
(hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support
staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol
did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue
generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential
lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the
expense. Simple business decision.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -drc
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could
be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though.
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
I think I'm exaggerating.If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some
disclaimer.regards,
Carlos
I absolutely agree with Carlos here this has got to be a joke or likelihood of NETSOL being extremely lazy on their part possibly lack of demand? There is absolutely no valid reason an update like this shouldn't be trivial to implement unless their system was built by IBM contractors 
The core functionality of any IP/DNS management system is the flexibility and robustness to quickly add and remove address records. No matter how bad the system was designed or implemented not being able to support new record types is a complete FAIL on all counts especially from a veteran registrar like NETSOL.
Like others have stated stick it where it hurts the most and use another vendor.