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

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:29 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kyle, I don't know if you can see this from where you're sitting, but you
> are making a religious argument here. It is not a misconfiguration to put a
> ULA in the DNS right now in the sense that it causes a problem.
>

This is not true. As I've noted several times over the past year, the
current behavior of glibc's getaddrinfo in Debian stable and maybe other
Linux distributions is to prefer ULA to IPv4, contra 6724. It does this by
combining the 6724 labels (so ULA and GUA are not mixed) with the 3484
precedences (so all IPv6 is preferred to all IPv4). I have no idea who made
that change or when it was introduced, but that person was a visionary;
BUT, in doing so, it would break (timeout/rejection, retry, etc.) with
unreachable ULA.

It's a misconfiguration because it doesn't match your mental model of How
> Things Should Be.
>

I am indeed arguing that putting unreachable addresses in global DNS is a
misconfiguration. As a site administrator, I wouldn't put either RFC 1918
addresses or ULA into global DNS if I wanted clients to be able to connect
without timeouts and retries. There are certainly alternate histories of
the internet in which such a model would have been okay, but that's not the
internet we have in this timeline.

Kyle