Re: [v4v6interim] Single namespace

On 02/10/2008, at 2:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>
> To be clear, I'm not saying, "Disaster! Bad! Evil! No! DNS purity!"
> I'm just raising a caution that there seems to be a boom on for
> split-brain DNS answers, and such answers come not only with DNSSEC
> problems, but other issues as well.

Oh that it were different. Would that we have completed this  
transition while there was plentiful IPv4 addresses left in the pool.  
Would that the dial stack transition were undertaken while we weren't  
being forced to assume unnatural configurations due to IPv4 address  
exhaustion. That way we would not be attempting to shoehorn a size 128  
Internet into a size 32 shoe for the next decade or more.

But we are where we are and now we have to explore notions that  
decouple the previously strict concepts of the equivalence of names  
and addresses. And if an IPv4 only host wants to initiate a  
conversation with an IPv6 only host, then the initial part of the  
conventional rendezvous, the DNS lookup, has to creatively lie in its  
response. Yeah, its crap, and yeah, its going to cause grief. Stuff  
will leak inappropriately and debugging problems will be tougher. And  
the DNS gets broken in strange ways as a consequence.

But we all knew this Andrew, didn't we? So I for one am not sure what  
point you are making here that wasn't part and parcel of any of these  
hybrid translation approaches. Am I missing something here in your  
post that advances something that was not well understood already?

Geoff

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim