IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: Re: Re: Moving DNS64 (RFC6147) to Internet Standard

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 13 April 2026 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5A7DB3DE98; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 06:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1776088422; bh=qJ0oRKxus2Edy00Z0Nfj136KkaQFh00nh06aZViC9mA=; h=To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-reply-to:Date; b=LFJ0xso6AiGcAXMoDb3y3vQxptTKk2JaUugCT6U28Cyq+Lo7vbnfDe5aPkUSMURnX Ra3JMy3xFQDrEkHYWdzcOhqrNboa46V3bqZNUpUml4SK93wAaikzreOMqVr1tUsbCG 4ILqZL6g3hwx6KYp5h5SHMs+pOYT4azlBIFyASio=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xslg48P6ADZr; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 06:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE8ACDB3DA5E; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 06:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1wCHj0-0000NwC; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:53:14 +0200
Message-Id: <m1wCHj0-0000NwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1wAunU-0000NEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <2338256.t9SDvczpPo@localhost> <038ae9d1-34fc-4085-aa6d-76ef79287857@gmail.com> <PARP264MB6760A67BB8F2060962E8A64088592@PARP264MB6760.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <B93DB6C8-2974-4915-93DE-DFCB6B858AFA@consulintel.es> <m1wB6jW-0000VYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <adpZq6IA3Hoq1eq3@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 11 Apr 2026 16:24:43 +0200 ." <adpZq6IA3Hoq1eq3@Space.Net>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:53:13 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: SB7L7DU4UQET5NM5WLUYYIGIK2WQJO4M
X-Message-ID-Hash: SB7L7DU4UQET5NM5WLUYYIGIK2WQJO4M
X-MailFrom: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: Re: Re: Moving DNS64 (RFC6147) to Internet Standard
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ict0BYWVV_cY6YyJwnsukayw7LA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

>"it is signed" does not imply "an off-the-shelf client will do local
>DNSSEC validation and fail on DNS64 replies"...  but out of curiousity:
>is there anyone defaulting to "validation on" in their stub resolvers?

Not exactly stub resolvers, but DNSSEC validating proxies are quite common.

>And if this is relevant, will it excert enough pressure on major sites
>like slack.com to add an IPv6 endpoint?  It's 2026, after all... no
>valid excuses anymore.

Maybe standards that break IPv4 access are not a great way to promote IPv6?

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status