Re: RFC6724-bis?

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 16:57 Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 23-Sep-22 05:21, David Farmer wrote:
> > Experience has shown us that despite recommendations to the contrary,
> ULAs are in the Public DNS, how much is questionable, but it exists
> nonetheless.
>
> So, guess who won't receive the traffic? The operator who misconfigured
> the DNS entry in the first place. This is not our problem to solve.
>
>     Brian


Yes, that is one possible, maybe even probable, outcome. However, a naive
response by the end user could be to turn off IPv6 on the local host, and
then the site will probably at least work better over IPv4. I think we want
to avoid encouraging that outcome, if at all possible.

Unfortunately turning off IPv6 is still in the help desk repertoire, it’s
not one of the first things they try any more, but I even have to still
chomp on my own help desk about this from time to time.

I think leaving unknown, most likely remote, ULA at a lower priority and
adding the /48 or other known local ULA to the table at a higher priority
automatically should help mitigate ULA in the public DNS and the possible
response of turning off IPv6.

In someways those that put ULA in the public DNS get what they deserve, I’m
just worried about the remote user’s response to the brokenness, causing
even more brokenness.

Thanks



> --
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================