> > If I > > am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 > > as a SHOULD? =20
> None significant I can think of, though I'd like to hear other opinions.=20 Perhaps the question to ask is whether support of EDNS0 is needed to make IPv6 work well enough. The thing that EDNS0 fixes that is of relevance here is the small packet size problem. In DNS, packets are restricted (by default) to be 512 bytes. With IPv6's bigger addresses, packet overflows are more likely to happen. If we expect this is going to be a problem, then the right thing to do is recommend use of EDNS0, even if it isn't widely deployed yet (and for ipv4, the packet size is less of an issue, hence less motivation/need for it there). Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
