Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

"Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011@gmail.com> Thu, 29 May 2014 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655611A0699 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 jJ3a-fUFHDxA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22b.google.com (mail-yh0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D93A1A063F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id v1so770910yhn.30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2cdvLPHEDdzpLh0A1U4zL3K6ffrj4+fvh0gaC9XUBng=; b=NgqY5DDaIfcIjBfcHXG+VIs0SdcsA+McEluRLEcOw/O6q5kS0T9yPGoXya4getU9gu jcPI4ycPTrc7erCuPy6AY1ZOBpvGvwWlWsfsGilIjL2UgMhzj6BteBHrr0xLnYvSzkbd ZVpSZ88aU4S4KNYA+GNpTvxOKZ39EuDnd3p0uxa3QfNAYiaI8GFHLVjr+FLKnN3un+bN xQ9DY4hT0oOfkaQATfHqh2m3wTHlDnhTsHK+5CIYu1BWf2DYwi9Mp9uIX0hmZ2q6KK0z M/8mhTbw4TEfwYYJKR1H9vVk+bka4Sye2AIMy2bCtSeoVLZ9Ur7JmQOA9LI9lb4YBfhE hnow==
X-Received: by 10.236.91.48 with SMTP id g36mr13244873yhf.151.1401394687106; Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from albion.local ([2001:13c7:7001:7000:702d:feb2:766f:1988]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e65sm2535066yhl.2.2014.05.29.13.18.05 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <538795FB.6060205@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:18:03 -0300
From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140521194638.06eaf508@resistor.net> <1111FB79-012A-414B-B8CD-0BBDAE8BD6A8@hopcount.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20140522095317.0c5fd648@elandnews.com> <5C02BCCA-79D7-40A5-BFB0-26284A667E78@vpnc.org> <DC9ED318-2352-4AF0-8A43-29D237C32B64@vigilsec.com> <924045CD-DC34-423B-8702-CD99CF687D46@vpnc.org> <31344.1401304682@sandelman.ca> <BF0C8B7B-27D0-40B8-8FBD-5D255951222F@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF0C8B7B-27D0-40B8-8FBD-5D255951222F@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kB1jwCaAcQjZ1s05G7VtH89YBkk
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: carlos@lacnic.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 20:18:12 -0000

I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST
support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to
move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future
networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the
burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers.

If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or
do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a
fragile position.

IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of
the IETF.

Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server
operators who chose to ignore this MUST.

IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be
possible to even say so in the proposed document.

cheers!

~Carlos

On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 
>> I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.
>>
>> I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload
>> among hardware.
> 
> Yes, that is my view as well.
> 
>> Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
>> responders.
>> I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 be
>> answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
>> different locations.
>>
>> I think that the current text captures this just fine:
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Jari
>