Subject: Re: AAAA/A6 thing

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:14:39 -0400 (EDT)

Folks,

Right or wrong.  Paul's comment is valid.  A6 will be deployed at least on
BIND (well it is now actually) and on Microsofts DNS is my read.  

As one of the people to fund BIND future development and with others we
believe it should not be implemented for greater than 3 levels of
hierarchy till more testing and experimentation is done. But A6 will be
shipped on the street and its a done deal.

Do I like A6 no.
Do I think a better solution exists yes.
But do I advocate deployment of A6 yes.
Why because its time to move forward.

I also thought continuing private address space was a bad idea in v6. I
still do.  KNow what I hope to help build that feature in our products.

The Internet is crumbling under to many NAT and VPN peek-a-boo packets and
we need to get IPv6 on the street.  It is happening now.  Will happen a
lot by the end of this year.  U.S. may be last to do it but thats ok they
will do it too eventually.

The real work we can do is elsewhere now like Multihoming and MIPv6.

regards,

/jim

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, David Terrell wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 06:16:21PM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Dan;
> > 
> > It's your problem.
> > 
> > > Paul A Vixie writes:
> > > > i have not, yet, heard anything new against A6 in this round of the debate.
> > > 
> > > http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html
> > 
> > How about:
> > 
> > 	aol.com.	NS	ns0.aol.net.
> > 	aol.com.	NS	ns1.aol.net.
> > 
> > 	aol.net.	NS	ns0.aol.com.
> > 	aol.net.	NS	ns1.aol.com.
> > 
> > ?
> 
> In this case, ns[01].aol.{net,com} will be in the {net,com} zones as 
> glue.
> 
> I think the question that I have yet to see answered that Dan is
> not articulating well is "how the hell is DNS glue supposed to work
> sanely with A6?"  I can't find an answer to that myself.  Everybody's
> talking about no full IP addresses written anywhere, and DNS
> delegation is one place where that just doesn't work.  You need the
> full 128 bit address in there, and glue registry is the one place
> that these addresses can't change frequently, because of the bulk
> of TLD zones and complicated, time consuming procedures registrars
> use to update those records... 
> 
> -- 
> David Terrell            | "I went into Barnes and Noble to look for a 
> Prime Minister, Nebcorp  | book on A.D.D., but I got bored and left." 
> [email-masked]             | - Benjy Feen
> http://wwn.nebcorp.com/  |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 May 2001 03:11:12 -0000

Jim Bound writes:
> But A6 will be shipped on the street and its a done deal.

No, it is not. IPNG can terminate the A6/DNAME proposals right now.
Users will continue to rely on AAAA, not on A6 and DNAME.

> we believe it should not be implemented for greater than 3 levels of
> hierarchy

Even a single level of A6 indirection is dangerous. See my example of
AOL committing suicide at the top of http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html.
I can't imagine what you think a 3-level limit would accomplish.

> As one of the people to fund BIND future development

Thank you for disclosing your financial interests. Did you know that
United States antitrust law prohibits packing standards committees?

---Dan

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:40:06 -0400 (EDT)

Itojun,

My take as implementor and deployer champion is I don't care anymore.  No
one is going to use it till it works and thats a coding and performance of
implementation issue.  We are working on the BIND issues of performance
now in the deployment community for IPv6.  If necessary we will pay the
highest bidder to get it done and perform. But until then I tell users to
just use AAAA. Cause it works now.

/jim

On Tue, 1 May 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> 	what I am worrying is that A6 is contributing negatively to the
> 	deployment of IPv6, due to less availability in code.  it may have a
> 	positive impact if it gets deployed worldwide (less signing cost on
> 	renumber), but i guess the negative impact (to deployment) is bigger
> 	than the benefits from less signing cost.
> 	today there's no commercial/free software OS (i know of) that ships
> 	with A6-chasing resolver.  not sure they will ever migrate to BIND9
> 	resolvers, many of them are still stuck with BIND4 resolver (with
> 	security fixes, of course) because of binary backward compatibility
> 	issues and local changes they have made.
> 
> 	maybe this feeling is because I'm from very IPv6-deployment-aggressive
> 	region.  i really would like to see IPv6 NS records to be available
> 	everywhere, including root, and A6 is one of the obstacles for IPv6
> 	NS record deployment.
> 
> 	anyway, i'll shut up and write up a draft.
> 
> itojun
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 11:33:21 +0900

itojun

---

From: Nathan Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:19:42 +1000

>No, it is not. IPNG can terminate the A6/DNAME proposals right now.

They can, but are unlikely to. We can spend thread after thread
debating whether these new developments should be used: IPv6, A6, DNAME,
AAAA, etc. Yet, the feeling I get is that many people would rather
implement them and then decide: whether the protocols should advance to
Draft Standards; whether further restrictions are required; whether
the negative aspects can be avoided with common sense, etc.

>United States antitrust law prohibits packing standards committees?

I don't see it as a case of stacking the standards process. Proposed
Standards are already available and, whether good or bad, some people
want to implement them and gain some operational experience. Jim and
others are funding the implementation of existing protocols.

--
nathanj

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 03:07:51 -0700 (PDT)

% D. J. Bernstein wrote:
% >Jim Bound writes:
% >> But A6 will be shipped on the street and its a done deal.
% >
% >No, it is not. IPNG can terminate the A6/DNAME proposals right now.
% 
% They can, but are unlikely to. We can spend thread after thread
% debating whether these new developments should be used: IPv6, A6, DNAME,
% AAAA, etc. Yet, the feeling I get is that many people would rather
% implement them and then decide: whether the protocols should advance to
% Draft Standards; whether further restrictions are required; whether
% the negative aspects can be avoided with common sense, etc.

	people have implemented them and we are finding significant
	operational hurdles. Lack of tools to facilitate the use
	of these quite flexable new RR types only hinders their
	consideration.  It really boils down to whcih tools are
	easier to construct, tools to ease renumbering w/ AAAA
	or to make A6 managable. 

% nathanj
% 
% 
% 
% to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
% the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
% 

-- 
--bill

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 07:45:06 -0700

Date:        Wed, 2 May 2001 03:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
    From:        Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 	people have implemented them and we are finding significant
  | 	operational hurdles.

There isn't sufficient deployment to have found hurdles in these yet.
All it is possible to have found at the minute is teething troubles.

  |     Lack of tools to facilitate the use
  | 	of these quite flexable new RR types only hinders their
  | 	consideration.

for DNAME, yes, sure, but for A6 ???   A6 is easier to use than AAAA
from a setup point of view (less chance of getting the number of bits
wrong, and especially of doing it systematically).

As a justification for A6, that's about as week as it is possible to
get (so don't count it that way), but "lack of tools" isn't any kind
of detriment either.

What's more, once they do really start being used, whatever is missing
will appear.   (There's already a tool that will convert between different
ways of writing IPv6 addresses - including ip6.int forms - extending that
a couple more times should not be difficult).

kre