Given current ipv6 trends, we are seeing requests for more ipv6 mirrors and
general ipv6 infrastructure. Most of these requests are coming from community
provider's that have ipv6 in their upstream DC. Not many end users *have* ipv6
yet, although more requests are being generated as power users get ipv6 and
eventually consumer grade internet gets ipv6. A big push for ipv6 has been
provided by tunnel brokers (he.net, et al). As such, Gentoo infrastructure
should roll out a better plan on how to handle ipv6 mirrors in general, starting
with the head of the "food chain" (rsync1.us) and trickling down to the end
user.

In general, we want community mirrors to choose their preferred method to rsync
from us. Likewise, for end-users.

The following holds for everyone:
    1) Use ipv4 only rotations
    2) Use ipv6 only rotations
    3) Use a mixed rotation if they don't care.

Current status:
* For community mirrors providers:
rsync1.us.gentoo.org (albatross) provides ipv4
rsync1.ipv6.gentoo.org (albatross) provides ipv6
* For end users:
rsync.gentoo.org provides ipv4 (10 servers in this rotation)
rsync.ipv6.gentoo.org provides ipv6 (1 server in this rotation!)

-----------------------
Community Mirrors:
Current status is a mess. Proposed:

rsync.$cc.gentoo.org provides *both* ipv4 and ipv6
by association: rsyncX.$cc.gentoo.org provides both if available.

rsync.ipv6.$cc.gentoo.org provides only ipv6
rsyncX.ipv6.$cc.gentoo.org provides only ipv6

The above rsync.ipv6.$cc.g.o is open for bikeshedding. I don't like the rotation
name myself.
--------------------------


Discussion:

23:52 <+darkside_> for a start, we need more ipv6 infra ran rsync nodes :)
23:54 <@robbat2> for the community stuff, how about the following:
23:54 <@robbat2> rsyncN.$cc.g.o, provide whatever the node actually HAS
23:54 <@robbat2> v4/v6/both
23:54 <@robbat2> rsync.$cc.g.o provides BOTH
23:54 <@robbat2> rsync-ipv4.$cc.g.o provides v4
23:54 <@robbat2> rsync-ipv6.$cc.g.o provides v6
23:54 <@robbat2> and we auto-construct rsync.$cc.g.o from the individual v4/v6
ones
23:55 <+darkside_> aye, that works
23:55 <@robbat2> for most people, that should just work
23:56 <@robbat2> if they have broken v6 routing, then they'll have to change
from rsync.$cc to rsync-ipv4
23:56 <+darkside_> well, rsync will default to ipv4 unless -6 is in the options
23:56 <+darkside_> iirc
23:57 <@robbat2> what if it gets an v6 response to the DNS query, without -6?
23:58 <+darkside_> ah yea, then rsync fails if they don't have ipv6 support
23:58 <@robbat2> what would be ideal is only giving v6 answers if they are
asking w/ v6 DNS
23:59 <@robbat2> but that's nearly impossible because lots of people still have
v4 DNS servers on v6 networks
--- Day changed Tue Feb 02 2010
00:02 <+darkside_> the ipv6 folks are zealots, they want a ipv6 only rotation I
think.
00:05 <+darkside_> i think the rsync{,-ipv4,-ipv6} idea will work. Just need to
agree and implement :)
EOF