IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A6 record status

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 12 August 2011 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 B15D921F86AD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 svBvTpIZnVNw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2B821F8698 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 245EA5F98D3; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:56:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45EED216C7B; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:56:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BF212BFBCF; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:56:44 +1000 (EST)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9201228398@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4E3F5166.8000605@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9201228515@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <750E838E-3962-4893-A2D0-012576A1BF36@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|7906899305f1bb5341fe3f32269a1f49n779ac03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|750E838E-3962-4893-A2D0-012576A1BF36@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <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>
Subject: Re: A6 record status
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:06:06 +1200." <4E447C7E.30202@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:56:44 +1000
Message-Id: <20110812045644.39BF212BFBCF@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
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 04:56:34 -0000

In message <4E447C7E.30202@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
> On 2011-08-12 11:47, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > I think it is make work 
> 
> That's why I am only suggesting an IESG decision, not a draft
> and an RFC.
> 
> > and won't change the amount of confusion.
> > In addition A6 allows compresssion of the domain name in the rdata
> > so it can't be treated as unknown (i.e. a opaque blob) by nameservers.
> 
> If it's historic, servers shouldn't even contain any A6 records,
> surely?

Making something historic doesn't remove the old software or the
old records.  Removing knowledge of A6 from recursive server will
result in garbage A6 records being delivered to old clients that
are A6 aware.  A6 aware clients still work as they ask for both
AAAA and A6 records.

One needs a phase out plan if you want to remove A6 support and it
is likely to need to be decades long given how long people run old
nameservers for.

> > If one wants to do something about IPv6 addresses in the DNS add
> > support for scoped addresses.  Link-local could then be useful.
> 
> Different topic, and I suspect much more complex.
>
>    Brian
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email