Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard

Johan Ihren <johani@autonomica.se> Wed, 27 March 2002 18:26 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14164 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:26:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qHrK-000DXW-00 for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:09:18 -0800
Received: from snout.autonomica.se ([192.71.80.82]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qHrJ-000DXQ-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:09:17 -0800
Received: by snout.autonomica.se (Postfix, from userid 1211) id C7E8CF92; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:08:11 +0100 (CET)
To: Nathan Jones <nathanj@optimo.com.au>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard
References: <200203141526.KAA19163@ietf.org> <20020327212727.B23106@connect.com.au>
From: Johan Ihren <johani@autonomica.se>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:08:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20020327212727.B23106@connect.com.au>
Message-ID: <2cu1r1lw8k.fsf@snout.autonomica.net>
Lines: 46
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Nathan Jones <nathanj@optimo.com.au> writes:

> Having been away from the list for a while, the arguments against this
> draft have already been discussed. I'm sending this message to note
> that I also object to draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt.

As do I (i.e. I've been away from the list and *do* object).

But I think that by now the reasons that some of us want to keep A6
have been iterated by kre and Paul that there is really no need for me
to take the arguments through the hoops again.

In this mess we have at one end basically two DNS camps shouting at
each other while at another end we have (at least I think we have) the
v6 community silently watching (in horror?).

And the sad thing is that the v6 community (with a few notable
exceptions) doesn't seem to care about this debate, and this by itself
is used as an argument to kill A6/DNAME.

And the question that will never get answered is whether all of the v6
community that helped vote against A6/DNAME realize how little impact
keeping A6/DNAME would have on their deployment plans, written
software, etc, etc.

In hindsight I think that the A6/DNAME camp made a long series of
tactical mistakes:

The first was the bitstrings. That one wasn't a real winner. I can
remember few things that have confused me as much as working with
bitstrings.

The second was (possibly) DNAME, since that particular rope seems to
be regarded as more dangerous than all the other ropes available out
there.

The third was pushing for AAAA synthesis as a *transition* mechanism
when it should have been described as an A6 core vs AAAA edge strategy
(thereby alleviating worries among all the people who've already used
AAAA in all kinds of software).

And at the end A6 was lost, the most crucial piece, and one that cannot
be replaced. Ever.

Johan Ihrén
Autonomica

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>