IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 16 August 2017 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF4A132076 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 03:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xNy_IPy3myp1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 03:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A14D13232C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 03:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4BDEAAF; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:01:03 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502877663; bh=2uUvPd9ix111sHgQ/3UastILYj+wCuvrPsem5+nXfk4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=tWPKr4LryuZhT6Qh6ql6I9LrphONLuCeWzSkeufh6L6gx+XR2d0Iilfk6ngtWvigy fVrI3EFt31zjDLOquxeIDa5VOr6DP0L8YAWNhdVu06k3GKIQvevsdZkL8PDPgQqyA4 1v94I2hR0r8sW19Tu71ghTbZ5vvQlxaDMOw+uykw=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3307F84; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:01:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:01:03 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Davey Song <songlinjian@gmail.com>
cc: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAObRXLtDgor10j9jH6Nq0Bynhe4xJXa2KPsuX6xVhGmTKg2dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161158550.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <149908054910.760.8140876567010458934.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANLjSvU23OPMM=cETxBiV7j8UhMzMd426VuivxAtboMAB0=7jw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707031317070.21595@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CANLjSvXE4q9PSEc4txKM4OPKXVpT38N_PC2-fDHmihpk29ahcw@mail.gmail.com> <1197245d-6b9a-3c3b-82a0-dc6a1cc3de58@nic.cz> <CANLjSvVe99q4vtTW0TRopmQ0s9hC8HdMze5B6COs8Y_3unir5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAiTEH8ntOerB6MGKMS2xcCK3TL9n4fyLq6F+bpUY6oTUpWN8w@mail.gmail.com> <20170816054539.GA12897@jurassic> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708160816580.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170816064855.GB16977@jurassic> <CAAObRXLtDgor10j9jH6Nq0Bynhe4xJXa2KPsuX6xVhGmTKg2dw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/IBh_MrPe9cEABidcJbKDMt91z9g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:01:12 -0000

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Davey Song wrote:

> Accroding to your description, I feel that IPv6 has better chance to win
> than its "brother" DNSSEC. LoL

Currently they're both winning, and in kind of the same fashion.

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Clients are sitting behind DNSSEC validating resolvers, but there are few 
zones to validate (apart from in a few markets, like .se and .cz). Clients 
are more and more getting IPv6 enabled, but the long tail content is not 
being enabled, and neither is the enterprise.

So generally, enterprise is problematic in both spaces.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email