Christian Huitema writes ("RE: AAAA/A6 thing "):
> The motivation for A6 is still valid; no new argument there,
What motivation for A6 ? Where can I read what the motivations were
of the authors of 2874 ?
As far as I can tell it was just cooked up in a back room somewhere
under the influence of mind-altering substances. Now it may have been
properly discussed somewhere in some IETF WG, and it may even have
been designed (though clearly not by anyone who understands the DNS).
However I have asked several times for someone to point me at these
discussions, and I have had no concrete reference.
> I believe it will be a great tool for network managers.
Please explain.
> We definitely need to gather operational experience.
No, we do not need to gather operational experience to see that
anything useful that can be done with A6 (ie client-side indirection
for the prefix) can be done with AAAA just as well if not better - all
you need is a half-decent tool to help you construct zone files, which
anyone serious has anyway.
We have a serious complexity problem with many IETF and related
protocols at the moment. There should not be features in any
standards track protocol than cannot be clearly and cogently
justified.
The burden of proof is on A6 proponents to explain how doing the
prefix lookup in the client at resolution time, rather than at the
server side at data generation or load time, is a benefit. This
burden has not even come close to being satisfied as far as I can see;
perhaps it was in the past (though I doubt it), but if so no-one seems
able to point us at the relevant messages.
> Note that RFC 2874 packs together the use of A6 for name to IPv6 address
> resolution, and the use of binary labels and DNAME for the IPv6 address
> to name translation. When we conduct the evaluation, it may be useful to
> separate the three points: A6, discussed above, DNAME, which has its own
> set of benefits and issues, and binary labels, which is clearly an
> extension to the core DNS name resolution mechanism.
DNAME and bitstring are awful too, and should be abolished as well.
But at the moment we seem to be arguing about A6.
Ian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
