Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Understood.  I think the long tail of devices that don’t support this will
be IoT devices, but I will admit that I could be wrong. OTOH for a very
long time people assumed that rule 5.5 would never be widely implemented…

Op do 11 apr 2024 om 10:45 schreef Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:31 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I don't disagree with you about this. It doesn't match my mental model
>> either. However, this just isn't relevant to this discussion—neither you
>> nor I have control of all DNS zones on the Internet, and that's probably a
>> good thing. So if we want to see better behavior when zone operators
>> violate our expectations, the only knob we have to turn is to improve host
>> implementations.
>>
>
> We're arguing about this because I'm opposed to any change that encourages
> operators to deploy what you and I agree is a misconfiguration.
>
> Right now with glibc, and under the proposed precedences, publishing ULA
> to global DNS would cause visible problems that service providers would
> then have an incentive to fix. Mandating known-local not only reduces this
> incentive, it actually encourages broader intentional deployment of this
> misconfiguration. That is the outcome I want to avoid. There is a long tail
> of existing devices attached to the network that will not ever implement
> known-local, and they will become less functional over time if the
> incentive to fix this is reduced or removed.
>
> BUT... I mostly want something published with the new precedences. I
> already said at the very top of the thread that I'm in favor of publishing
> the document. If I'm in the rough on this known-local issue, so be it. It's
> still a good document and will improve ULA and so encourage more IPv6
> adoption within enterprises, despite my reservations about known-local.
>
> Clear?
>
>
> Kyle
>
>
>