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

[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