At 12:28 -0400 4/19/10, Jason Livingood wrote:
This thread seems to have died out.  But I will note that it appears to be
on the agenda at the upcoming ISOC IPv6 workshop (from 16:30 - 18:00 - see
https://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/registration/index.php?id=7ce20e4c88b7
e328).  It is also addressed in a short whitepaper some colleagues and I put
together in advance of that meeting (available at
http://www.comcast6.net/IPv6_DNS_Whitelisting_Concerns_20100416.pdf)

After reading the white paper I can think of a lot of things to say, but not much related to DNS operations. What comes to mind is something that could make use of this proposal:
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00

That is not a savior here, I don't propose it to be. What I wanted to point out is that while that proposal is talking about conveying addressing information in support of tailoring answers, the white paper is talking about the design of the tailoring.

In some cases, responses can be tailored according to a simple design - "all addresses in North America get these servers, in Europe those servers, in Asia those servers, and so on. But the problem with IPv6 connectivity testing is that the granularity (needed for tailoring) is not very consistent.

It depends on whether the matter is that an entire /LIR's with of addresses can't be reached from the provider or just those clients using 6to4 or just a particular client behind a cable modem still running from June 1942.

I used to think the problem was "how to get around discontinuous IPv6 routing when I have a local "global" address." Now it seems like it's a problem of scattered and varied (to use the same ill-defined word) "brokenness" sprinkled all over the place. What's this got to do with DNS operations? I can't see...how the DNS can really be of help in this matter.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Wouldn't it be nice if all of the definitions of equivalence were the same?
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to