Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

[Alain Durand <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:41 AM, Ebersman, Paul <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03Nov, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alain Durand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
>> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative
>> authority. Thus, the need to make a BCP is much lower. This can be seen
>> as simply an implementation issue. In other words, there are other
>> solutions that could be used, for example a translation of the DNS packets
>> from IPv4 to IPv6. Such a translation may or may not be optimal, but it
>> would work and, more importantly, would not break the DNS resolution and
>> would have no impact on the stability of the DNS system as a whole.
> 
> Putting in a second DNS server that does nothing but forward everything just to
> translate v4 to v6 does indeed have an impact on stability if you try to do it
> at large scale. It impacts infrastructure costs, performance and potentlally confuses
> geo-ip/cdn. It also adds complexity in debugging.

I was talking about doing the translation in the CPE. But, the larger point is, this was just an example of something else that could be done, although, I agree, sub-optimally.
What draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt proposes is reasonable, no objections. However, as far as I know, this is already being documented by the various IPv4aas solutions.

Alain.