Re: [v6ops] New draft at dnsop a bis for DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines

Nick Buraglio <> Thu, 09 November 2023 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465DDC14CF09 for <>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I2hYBJa2mLup for <>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A18C17C502 for <>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 06:04:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-41cc0e9d92aso5549511cf.3 for <>; Thu, 09 Nov 2023 06:04:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; t=1699538678; x=1700143478;; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6gH7l/DmF+c7kVe1AFpCJadXDDXW82E3ocLWTNmrhas=; b=Tow4dEp5X79bVdHq+Mf9mNJGHyeXYBkFvFdFZeDR280GPo9UANj+iQov6HN2aCAWBQ FVBIt5RWV7qNXH+i2SxU8x1wgG6tbfZnzdPytuHxEkw+LYachy68j47myDacsQe1hsoz TH2Lp6q1/Mm10dckrxRWvToT2kChRpjDbcxik=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1699538678; x=1700143478; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=6gH7l/DmF+c7kVe1AFpCJadXDDXW82E3ocLWTNmrhas=; b=VuSHDz3pzAz7IMKS1TyWx24sqCHrompWWPIPWyKnt6gv+mc/csE2njkMaPMR5g2dqY p17XKpTAYvvsYsSBKTcdr3YNumlFzFODxcyVdu1pEsyZcywDpDK0noR2lfF88wuD4NaB 42pqznVbPiL4jFmdbsLPGW0YmUINWBTp8uFawfi2cMkaDSr/BjfZlRVLFdLG0cKFSjEB K0+H6ooDKUjsHnX0x7OxWCWz5oEgCO+RKGDeIMEfI/SHPtJmUHEJh0dB9h0IxqziDZDX gDZax+JukzV6opEuWajDTzxRvrjth2hegLkh82SVZLQHw02rHCqzlzFHdXJIYvNqob2k 7Lhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx7qUb9i6ZayPA53r9ClMnW3swK9r9x9ebRxtdKUv3YNuRo0ROh Jc6yRBEbkGhBIOik2PlbjipcTnpYDBpm+OYIRCc1XIUwWxEzS689syw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFQ88/naxAlP1rpumhWUWJ9YYZRhTfwRXaR2p4o7F2F9LyjIZNOz4FTElGaeF2dMzrn6OpbsSrDsZvGLzCrKZg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:190f:b0:418:1365:9b41 with SMTP id w15-20020a05622a190f00b0041813659b41mr5300234qtc.54.1699538678582; Thu, 09 Nov 2023 06:04:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Nick Buraglio <>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 08:04:27 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Momoka Yamamoto <>
Cc: list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000382c430609b8af0a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New draft at dnsop a bis for DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 14:04:50 -0000

Thanks for writing this, I found it to be well written and clear. I agree
and support this, "promoting" IPv6 to the same level as legacy IP is
probably a bit overdue in some guidance documents, and this is an important
one to address.
One off-the-cuff thought, take it or leave it:
It is briefly mentioned it in the draft, but I would emphasize the
transition technologies and the part they play in masking problems. This is
becoming more and more exposed as we start stripping away IPv4 and exposing
where those tools are hiding gaps in plain sight. This is not likely to
change, especially as we get further down the transition path, but the more
of those gaps we can fill with simple things like dual stacking a resolver
the less technical debt we have to dig out of later. And, as we all
probably know, when DNS is broken or slow, it looks like the network is
broken or slow, which often leads to things like "IPv6 is breaking the
network, turn it off" and we definitely do not want that.



On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:28 AM Momoka Yamamoto <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I've submitted a draft to the dnsop wg
> DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines
> draft-momoka-dnsop-3901bis
> It has been 20 years since this RFC was published and I think it is time
> for an update to have IPv6 to a SHOULD for DNS servers.
> I will be presenting this draft tomorrow morning at dnsop wg so I would be
> very grateful if you could give me feedback on this draft.
> Best,
> Momoka
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list