Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-bp-v6ops-ipv6-ready-dns-dnssec-00.txt

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:13 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     So you are suggesting that DNS operators have to do some work (in
>>     quite short timeframe) to facilitate something they might not even
>>     care about...Not sure it would work.
>
> They should care about providing a good service, right?
> A good service today is not just IPv4-only.

So you are saying that IETF needs to publish a document which mandates
that all DNS operators not providing good services should get their
NSes "temporarily suspended"?

Well, why stop here? As both of us are at RIPE77 now - maybe it's time
to suggest that ASes  not advertizing IPv6 blocks (or not getting 5
starts in IPv6 RIPEness?) shall get their v4 blocks taken away?
Together with AS numbers? ;)

>>     Obviously *just* adding AAAA RR for A-only names has nothing to do
>>     with enabling IPv6 for a service.
>
> Clearly, we need to rephrase it. We meant not just the RR part, but of course, having the IPv6 connectivity.

And - as per the draft - "Probing mechanisms to verify that the
relevant AAAA are fully operational MUST be setup by IANA. ". While
I'm sure many service owners would love to have a free monitoring
system run by IANA,  I'm not entirely convinced it's feasible.

>>     The service needs to have IPv6 connectivity (which might not even be
>>     available in the specific location) it needs to be tested etc. Adding
>
> IPv6 free tunnels are available, in case, I doubt, you can't setup a tunnel to your upstream provider or alternatively to any of their upstreams. I've been there, several times, in the most strange and remote locations.

I'm not entirely sure recommending tunnels is such a good idea...

> I think trying is much better than just complaining and not doing something. Clearly IETF liaison with ICANN need to take actions here.

As I described in my previous email, I believe that the proposed
actions are more likely to hurt v6 adoption than promote it.

> Believe it or not, there are still many DNS "operators" that have no idea about IPv6, and a call for action should enforce them to do something.

I do believe you indeed. I did measurements on overlap between signed
zones and v4-only names while ago.
If those operators have no idea about IPv6 they need to be educated.
Publishing a document explaining why not having AAAA in a signed zone
is not such a good idea and providing recommendations does sound as a
good idea.
Requesting something non-feasible and non-enforceable (and not clearly
defined) does not sound like a good idea to promote IPv6 deployments.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry