RE: A6 record status

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

> In message <[e-mail]>, 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.

Yes, your statement are right. However, the case of A6 is there are few current A6 software or records. As far as I know, there are no commercial A6 supports in the current global DNS system. A6 only existed in some experimental system, like 6net. So, what we are worried here is not these existing A6. By moving A6 into historic, we are preventing any NEW A6 implementation or deployment.

Sheng
 
> 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: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------