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

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:50:51 -0500

FYI

------- Forwarded Message

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:24:13 -0800
Subject: Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt

i object.  i consider this document, and the process which has led to it,
to be anticompetitive in the extreme.  it will also relegate IPv6 to mobile
data applications and will cement NAT as the main way for enterprises of all
sizes to connect to "the internet."  the process which led up to it involved
secret meetings and the decisions were never ratified by any working group.

consider that IPv6 allows far larger enterprise networks to use globally
_unique_ address space than IPv4.  now consider that no such enterprise will
have globally _routable_ address space except for a few large ISP's.  this
disconnect between eligibility for globally _unique_ vs globally _routable_
address space must inevitably lead to higher customer stiction by these few
large ISP's.  the "renumbering penality" for an enterprise with its own
globally unique (but not globally routable) /64 is much higher than for an
enterprise with its own globally unique /27 and its own internal RFC1918
cloud.

this document leads to a scenario where multihoming can only be practical
for a small number of "externally visible" hosts, but never for the whole
enterprise.  the artificially high "renumbering penalty" of a pure-AAAA
solution will either drive enterprises to continue using NAT and RFC1918,
or will drive them to remain customers of the ISP who owns their address
space regardless of market pressures to move elsewhere.

crawford's A6/DNAME proposal has some warts but it has none of THESE warts.

i am researching the appropriate federal agency to lodge a complaint about
anticompetitive activity, since the IETF's membership (including some of
the authors of this draft) are employees or agents of the large ISP's who
will benefit from a market stranglehold if this standard is approved.

meanwhile, i urge that this document be shredded and its authors chastised.

re:

> To: IETF-Announce: ;
> Cc: [email-masked]
> From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> SUBJECT: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed
>          Standard
> 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

------- End of Forwarded Message

--
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: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:38:34 -0500 (EST)

How does anything in DNS affect routability?

DNS is just a protocol for associating names with addresses, or more
generally, names with "information". It doesn't have to be the only
protocol that does that.

I am further amused that Paul would call anyone (else) anticompetitive,
and was rofl at the (his in particular) charge of "secret meetings" and
"unratified decisions".

Perhaps Paul should be chastised.

		--Dean

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:41:14 +0700

I also object.

The rational for deprecating A6 (more on that in a bit) is largely
based upon fear and guesswork.  There has been no actual study of
the use of A6 records that shows that it has any of the problems
claimed.

Nor has there ever been any WG consensus on this - there have been
discussions over and over again, which never achieved anything, until
everyone simply tired of re-iterating the same points over and over again.

The supposed intent is to make A6 "experimental", which gives the
impression that people could continue to play with it, and if it is
found to work OK, it could be moved back to standards track.
Procedurally, of course, it could.   Practically, don't be absurd.

Just consider if someone were to suggest changing the format of the
IPv4 A record.   How would that ever be achieved?   A document for a
new format is easy - actually getting it deployed would be impossible.
Servers have to return A records, because that's all that clients
currently look up.   Clients will only ever look up A records - the
previous point guarantees that servers will return them, so bothering
looking for something new n the off chance that the server may support
it is just wasting time and packets.   No way to break out of that.

The same would happen were AAAA to be the standard for some period of
actual use (it is already almost entrenched enough - but fortunately, usage
currently is still low enough that it is still possible to make changes).
Were this doc to be progressed, A6 would be dead forever for all
practical purposes.

There's no question but that A6 adds useful functionality to the DNS
lookups of names - if there wasn't, it never would have received consensus
and been published as a PS in the first place.   Dropping that functionality
just because some people are scared that it might be improperly used would
be absurd.

Discard this doc.

kre

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:50:59 -0800

> currently is still low enough that it is still possible to make changes).

it's already too late to recall the clients who look up AAAA's.  it is not
yet too late to recall the servers who don't do some form of AAAA synthesis,
which means practically speaking it is not too late to require A6/DNAME and
deprecate AAAA other than in synthesis or grandfather mode.

> Were this doc to be progressed, A6 would be dead forever for all

yes, if this doc is progressed, A6 is dead, no possibility of revival, not
even via AAAA synthesis.

> Discard this doc.

since the doc is not a WG product i'm not sure how it could have any
other fate.