Dear All,
Sorry for crossposting.
This proposal is the opposite with the principle how the DNS is developed
a while ago. The DNS is a highly distributed, hierarchical, autonomous,
reliable database with very useful extensions. This modification is
proposing lying about the existence of the record
The modification is proposed to hide the database record that is used for
communication. I am not favor such a modification since:
1. I think we need evidence, that majority of the AAAA queries are going
via IPv6 (if the client has working IPv6 and the DNS zones has the
necessary AAAA for the zones).
2. Plenty of users still use WinXP, where DNS query via IPv6 is not
possible. Probably other systems with similar limitations also exists.
This can very negatively impacting the IPv6 usage.
3. There is only few broadband CPE devices deployed at homes are capable
of providing DNS information via DHCPv6. Only very recently they started
to appear. Thus the addresses of the DNS servers are propagated via DHCP.
Therefore these broadband users, however they are IPv6 enabled, will
essentially use IPv4 address to reach DNS servers. Will you enable
returning AAAA records to these caching servers?
If yes. Will you get any information about the broadband ipv6
connectivity?
If no. You are excluding caching server users from ipv6?
4. How your scheme will work the caching DNS server - commonly deployed by
ISPs to serve their constituency.
5. What about the caching in the DNS server? Will they be flushed when
IPv6 or IPv4 connectivity changed? IPv6 connectivity changes of who?
6. Your modification is treating some portion of the users as a second
class netizen. They cannot really query AAAA records.... IPv6 is so
secret, that we have to hide from them?
Sorry for being sometimes sarcastics
Janos Mohacsi
Head of HBONE+ project
Network Engineer, Deputy Director of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
Probably no one on either of the IPv6 lists attended the DNSOPS WG meeting in
Anaheim, since it was at the same time as 6man.
Presentation by Yahoo! of a proposal to "do an ugly hack on DNS" to work
around an issue with "broken OSes" that send out AAAA requests when they have
no intention/ability to actually use an IPv6 address. Google experience is
that a small percentage of their users would lose connectivity because of
this, if google.com serves both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. I can't recall if
this particular issue has been discussed here, but either way anyone with an
interest should probably pop comments over to the DSNOPS WG list.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/slides/dnsop-7.pdf
Also FYI - this has gotten press coverage, not necessarily accurately
characterizing the problem or proposed solution
http://www.networkworld.com/podcasts/360/2010/032910-nw360-daily.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards
Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
