Re: A6 record status

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FAD11E8091 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T89MK1HNV-yZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93DF11E8088 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so2316901bka.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0BgYigCeDdoZRVo9V+tnv/GfRCUY76qvaY7zqL2A6X0=; b=oDJyvn6zuzM2EjNaTHm/p378cEXI4iv3TCe0UI70REkcZQJlZiyMj10MHahj46L1bz VvkZ1rvaBUG1sRi0KhzbpjbLNbkZ4+a9xlCkxGdLAK1LzGFGHEThCPF7h4wVsHsZH8lZ 8BCD8zoGlIFr0v4jGOPrZyHeDkFBqXNr0cdS4=
Received: by 10.204.241.14 with SMTP id lc14mr551199bkb.322.1313182423089; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q1sm10132faa.1.2011.08.12.13.53.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E4592CB.8020508@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:53:31 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: A6 record status
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9201228398@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4E406303.4040603@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B920122B288@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4E43378D.8070505@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B920122B2E1@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4E4345BB.5060103@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B920122B36A@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4E445261.3040506@gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A8895615@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <22F6318E46E26B498ABC828879B08D4F1786A07E@TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <20110811234742.C922612BD870@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4E447C7E.30202@gmail.com> <20110812045644.39BF212BFBCF@drugs.dv.isc.or g> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B920122BD2C@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <20110812071132.0B6CD12C1D5B@drugs.dv.isc.org> <A72BF956-5632-4774-B610-CE6CCB74149D@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <A72BF956-5632-4774-B610-CE6CCB74149D@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:53:09 -0000

I agree that the status of the RFC has no immediate or direct
impact on the real world. But I think it's orthogonal to the
*operational* question of how to eliminate the residual A6
records and how to eventually eliminate A6 queries. Mark is
completely correct that this would require a plan - but since
it's a purely operational matter, presumably it belongs in DNSOP
if it belongs anywhere in the IETF.

Marking the RFC as Historic would only be the first step,
apparently.

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-08-13 05:17, David Conrad wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> The root servers are getting 100's of A6 q/s (~20:1 AAAA:A6
>> <http://k.root-servers.org/statistics/GLOBAL/daily/>).  
> 
> Yeah, so?  The vast majority of the queries hitting the root servers are useless crap.  100's of A6 qps is in the noise.
> 
>> There is
>> still a very large base of A6 using software out there regardless
>> of whether they are getting NODATA responses or not.
> 
> And keeping an RFC as experimental is going to change that how?
> 
>> I don't know what percentage of responses are NODATA and what have
>> actual A6 records.  I do think we need to know answers to these sorts
>> of questions.
> 
> Why?  What possible difference will it make?
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>