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

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

> I'm very torn on that, because like it or not DNS64 is stable,
> well-defined, and widely implemented. (I'd also prefer to abolish
> the problem by abolishing the distinction between Proposed Standard
> and Internet Standard, but that's another story.)
> 
> But we still do need co-existence for very practical reasons. That's
> why v6ops is developing the IPv6-mostly approach in draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops,
> which explicitly says:  "Those concerns make DNS64 a suboptimal
> and undesirable solution long-term.  To eliminate the needs for
> DNS64..." etc.

What do we gain by advancing DNS64? It seems that draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops
uses DNS64 mainly for discovery of the translation prefix. If DNS64 would be
scoped such that it only works for ipv4only.arpa. then there is not a lot
of harm in having that as part of a DNS resolver.

Having a full DNS64 component only for the purpose of discovering the
translation prefix is likely to do more harm than good.