On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 07:45:44AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On 2010-04-03 05:55, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 06:09:53PM +0200, Rimi Despris wrote:
> >>> Surely a better hack would be for recursive resolvers in IPv6-broken
> >>> networks not to serve up AAAA records at all?
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> RD
> >
> > aren't you making the assumption that the recursive resolver is
> > on/in the same broadcast domain as the stub which it is serving?
> > how can you ensure that the IP reachability of the stub is "semantically
> > simialar"** to the IP reachability of the recursive resolver?
> >
> > the DNS has no hooks into topological reachability.
>
> Correct, but a hack in this area by definition can't cover all cases.
does it even cover a statistically significant fraction of cases?
>
> Er, much better to mend the IPv6 brokenness, of course.
then why not spend the energy/resouce on ensuring v6 transport
works instead of wasting this on what is clearly a DNS haq for
a temporary condition? Or is this a case of "when all we have is
the DNS, everything looks like a query/response"?
>
> Brian
>
> >
> > ** identical, equivalent, etc... See IDN equivalence
> >
> > --bill
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
