Subject: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:26:24 -0500

The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions Working Group
to consider Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS
<draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by April 2, 2002.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Nathan Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:27:27 +1100

Having been away from the list for a while, the arguments against this
draft have already been discussed. I'm sending this message to note
that I also object to draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt.

As I see it, the role of the IETF is to provide flexible standards
that enable people to do things, not to tell people that they can't
use certain functionality by deprecating the specification.

It cannot be said that there is consensus to progress this draft.
It can be said that is insufficient technical argument to deprecate
A6 and DNAME. Most of the anti-A6 argument appears to say "we don't
think you need easier renumbering, etc. so we'll take away the RR
types and tell you to find a work around".

In terms of administration, I believe A6 is only a little more complex
than AAAA, and that administrators will cope just fine if there are
guidelines available.

Has anyone yet started work on a draft to document guidelines for the
usage of DNS with IPv6? (eg. recommended limits on A6 chains, etc.)

-- 
Nathan Jones
[email-masked]

---

From: Johan Ihren <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2002 19:08:11 +0100

> that I also object to draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt.

As do I (i.e. I've been away from the list and *do* object).

But I think that by now the reasons that some of us want to keep A6
have been iterated by kre and Paul that there is really no need for me
to take the arguments through the hoops again.

In this mess we have at one end basically two DNS camps shouting at
each other while at another end we have (at least I think we have) the
v6 community silently watching (in horror?).

And the sad thing is that the v6 community (with a few notable
exceptions) doesn't seem to care about this debate, and this by itself
is used as an argument to kill A6/DNAME.

And the question that will never get answered is whether all of the v6
community that helped vote against A6/DNAME realize how little impact
keeping A6/DNAME would have on their deployment plans, written
software, etc, etc.

In hindsight I think that the A6/DNAME camp made a long series of
tactical mistakes:

The first was the bitstrings. That one wasn't a real winner. I can
remember few things that have confused me as much as working with
bitstrings.

The second was (possibly) DNAME, since that particular rope seems to
be regarded as more dangerous than all the other ropes available out
there.

The third was pushing for AAAA synthesis as a *transition* mechanism
when it should have been described as an A6 core vs AAAA edge strategy
(thereby alleviating worries among all the people who've already used
AAAA in all kinds of software).

And at the end A6 was lost, the most crucial piece, and one that cannot
be replaced. Ever.

Johan Ihrén
Autonomica

---

From: Nathan Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:44:54 +1100

[ post by non-subscriber ]

>AAAA in all kinds of software).

It was originally intended as a transition method, but after some
discussion it became clear that it would be an important fixture. Now
that we know this, it could be incorporated into an "A6 guidelines and
clarification" document.  I'll see if I can put aside some time to
draft up something.

-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2002 16:42:26 -0800

> clarification" document.  I'll see if I can put aside some time to

Tick tock, tick tock, gentlemen.  There are a couple thousand V6 hosts
around the world already.  Admitting A6/DNAME at this late date means
declaring that either all those hosts will have to be rototilled before
they can join the future production V6 network, or that all of their
recursive nameservers will have to be rototilled to participate in the
future production V6 network.  To the hardy-souled early adopters who
have "deployed" using AAAA, rototilling their crops because they used
outdated seeds just feels like the opposite of progress.

And those are the people who are making the decision re: AAAA vs A6/DNAME.

I think that as an architectural quality matter, we're about to make a
pessimal design choice.  A6/DNAME would have carried V6 deeper into the
enterprise and would have doubled V6's useful lifetime.  But the decision
isn't going to be made on the grounds of architectural quality, it'll be
made on what amounts to a time-to-market basis.  On _that_ basis, the game
is over.  Unless one wishes to dispute the decision process rather than the
decision's outcome, it's time to move onward to the limited deployment AAAA
will ever permit.

It's odd to see some of the commercial interests who have combined in favour
of "now, limited" rather than "later, full" deployment.  Sign of the times,
maybe?  "Long live NAT."

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2002 16:42:35 -0800

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:48:43 +0000 (GMT)

On 27 Mar 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:

> around the world already.  

I think there's a few more than that.   That just covers Japanese taxis.

Tim

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:08:38 +0900

>>>>> On 27 Mar 2002 16:42:26 -0800, 
>>>>> Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> said:

> And those are the people who are making the decision re: AAAA vs A6/DNAME.

I have the same view for this issue.  Through the discussion fo far, I
agree that we could not reach a technical consensus.  So, I admit that
those who support A6 are saying "we cannot make a decision before
experiencing A6 actually." have some valid points.

However, from a deployment point of view, we're running out of time,
at least here in Japan.  We've already deployed AAAA-based
implementations and configurations, and have operated IPv6 network
over the environment.  Based on the experiments, some large ISPs in
Japan will deploy nation-wide IPv6 service within this year (some has
already started the service), and they (and their customers) need
mature standards.  From this standpoint, the only choice between AAAA
and A6 is the former -I don't think it feasible to require customers
to use BIND 9 as name servers, to configure A6 as much as possible,
and to use BIND 9.2 with A6 synthesis as cache servers-.  So, I must
say we should begin with AAAA.  As far as I understand, this is the
reason for changing A6 as "experimental".

As repeatedly pointed out, "experimental" actually means the end
of life, once we deploy AAAA widely in the commercial services.  So I
agree that the word "experimental" is an excuse; we're killing A6 and
(possible) benefits in the future.  But I'd like to start deploying
IPv6 *now*, and can give up the benefits that A6 can provide.

I'm not sure if my opinion above can convince DNS experts in this
list...but I belive some amount of v6 community, especially those
who're deploying IPv6, share the opinion.

In any case, it would be sure that we need some compromise here.  How
can we make it?

> of "now, limited" rather than "later, full" deployment.  Sign of the times,

Perhaps we'll develop a perfect world with IPv32 and A32 someday...

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:28:46 -0800

> IPv6 *now*, and can give up the benefits that A6 can provide.

"long live nat"

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:44:18 -0500

> who're deploying IPv6, share the opinion.

Some of the "DNS experts" (if that's what we are) already agree with
you on this.  As I see it, the fundamental issue is that most of the
people trying to deploy IPv6 believe (1) that they have more urgent
concerns than this little DNS issue and (2) that they are more likely
to accomplish their main purpose by going with AAAA.  We could debate
whether this view is correct or not until the proverbial cows come
home, but I see little to be gained by doing so.

> In any case, it would be sure that we need some compromise here.  How

The options that I can see are:

a) Accept the course of action recommended by the draft currently in
   last call, and with the understanding that this is and will remain
   at best a very rough consensus; or

b) Flip a coin, if everyone involved would be willing to abide by the
   result (probability of which left as an exercise for the reader); or

c) Sign the horse up for another year of singing lessons.

--Rob

References:

"Recommendations" section of draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-00.txt 
(disclaimer: I wrote it, YMMV);

"Conclusion" section of IEN 137 ("On Holy Wars and a Plea For Peace").

Fable sometimes referred to by the tag line "And Maybe The Horse Will
Sing", attributed to Herodotus.