IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-bp-v6ops-ipv6-ready-dns-dnssec

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 07 December 2018 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59946130FCE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:15:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUGJA4LdPisG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DFFD130FCB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id y139so5477349wmc.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:15:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6dP7yOPjgNSroyIniteATeRH6Yb3oIZngjsxaYHmTfc=; b=Sw+8ZDf+AyKOVdp1tdE7THBJwdRa1xEt/2yub5PPhdHSrG7+7NoDO4C4LuK9fvF33h pXImnfR5Gdf0y4tLfTWFY7KQD4SZitUOq4Of20zfweq/13+SRg5CF2VOF/S3VrYAAtgn ATq8bpgGbkOQVPqDsvqzRhQqHapU8qS+Rsz8jQOPXua+Cuo+gOfbxqQO6ntokVPhCerd RzdnsXkDJmlMGbbL39L6zQ3CvjhczRcOGA0zLxrkvevkVKwxLqi4ZItJt8CHHfgaqRs7 drC656qjzjj+ocg4ZfMTi1hG8pqaerivGkDGwDb4MWzPIq2nB3idG5j8gEK6zm+IFdMs 65Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZpLj7rOTSPACHRNWwwuzUDH6m4ujfmNGaTgl8GfVbZ8m8zSM8z GF7oQX8ukpjYQIWZRTRMokVCOzKfW09U+qIXZpprss54
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XU8sJYQZiyI/9OKpo6YFV116nv2utMsuasRCxzTf/Jr0j8xfk7gtt18Mhto2OxmNtU1VqgnR2vL6exfwdtMQU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8d49:: with SMTP id p70mr3670740wmd.68.1544213734429; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:15:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR05MB42454BAA0B704263C0F02604AEAE0@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAJE_bqdT16yxhds5PxNmMDHKB=HOMJF9uQcBiOazHmnUGMjwgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdT16yxhds5PxNmMDHKB=HOMJF9uQcBiOazHmnUGMjwgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:15:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcQxu_n0LjLW+iHMB78teX2pcgRNYPRoJ7_=8MvGQQ11A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000191b24057c7447d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gBrqYqpUYiDU76_ujrjhmbJ2i7s>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-bp-v6ops-ipv6-ready-dns-dnssec
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 20:15:38 -0000

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:34 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

>    On a related note, there's one thing I'm not sure from the draft:
>    whether "requiring AAAA" also means "requiring to provide the
>    corresponding service over IPv6" (here I assume the existence of
>    such a service; that should normally be the case in practice).

Immediately after sending the message I realized I was confused
here...it should obviously mean "also providing IPv6 services";
otherwise the IPv6-only networks would still need some trick to deal
with "inauthentic AAAAs".  So I think the draft should state it even
more clearly.  It's quite easy and cheap to Just sign and publish
AAAA, but it's certainly more complicated and costly for a
now-IPv4-only network to support IPv6 services.  It would be
misleading to simply say "requiring AAAA" without clarifying that
point.  And then my higher point about the effectiveness applies,
though...

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email