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

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:59:22 +0900

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

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

> 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.

So we have almost no choice:-)

I'd like to know what others think.

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

--
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: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:56:29 +0700

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

  | The options that I can see are:

The option I think I'd like to see at the minute is that we require
that resolvers capable of receiving replies with RA clear, and acting upon
them, send queries for A6 when using IPv6 transport (and regardless of
what link layer is under that, including IPv4 tunnels)

I can live with continuing to use AAAA over IPv4, as that should eventually
fade away (sometime in the future).   If it doesn't, then what we do with
IPv6 DNS is going to largely be irrelevant.

For the users, that means that A6 records should be added to zone files if
your server can be reached over IPv6 (if it can only be reached over IPv4
then it doesn't really matter whether A6 records are there or not).   While
IPv4 connectivity is offered, then AAAA records should be available as well.
If the server isn't signing records then it is free to construct A6 0 out of
AAAA or AAAA out of A6 records (synthesis) as required - if records are being
signed then both will need to be in the zone file before signing, whether by
human action or server creation doesn't matter.

This way the people who want to move forward as fast as possible can keep on
using AAAA, as while there remain no IPv6 root servers, essentially all name
resolution has to be done via IPv4 (and who can tell how long it is going
to take before that political football obtains a solution).

But once we start using native IPv6 for full name resolution (other than from
back end to smarter resolver, which quite likely will always be AAAA and
synthesis, though individual implementations would be free to use A6 any
time they choose over IPv6 transport) A6 will start being used.

The time from now until when IPv6 name resolution really starts to be deployed
can be used for other implementations to support A6 records properly - as
long as the implementors become aware that this is what the solution is to be,
there should be plenty of time for users to be able to again have a choice
as to which implementation to deploy.

kre

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:13:34 -0500

>as to which implementation to deploy.

I'm confused by this.  What has the transport to do with the query? If you use
IPv4 or IPv6 or smoke signals to query the nameserver why does the query
have to request a specific record type?

         Danny

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:14:56 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:13:34 -0500, 
>>>>> Danny Mayer <[email-masked]> said:

> have to request a specific record type?

I have the same confusion.  Even with the fact many DNS servers and
resolvers do not support IPv6 transport for DNS, they are still
resolving AAAA (and, sometimes, A6).  This is in fact how Windows XP
and Solaris (as a resolver) and BIND 8 is working in the real world,
and, as I said in my previous message, we are now deploying IPv6 in
commercial services with these implementations (in some cases, they
sometimes use private IPv4 network for name resolution, and it simply
works well.)  So I don't think the period to deploy DNS IPv6 transport
can be a moratorium to deploy A6.

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:51:48 +0700

Date:        Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:13:34 -0500
    From:        Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I'm confused by this.  What has the transport to do with the query?

Nothing at all really.   I'd much prefer that we just use A6 records
now, regardless of how they're transported.

But people seem to not want to wait until servers that support A6 properly
are deployed.

If we do nothing, and just keep on using AAAA, then A6 has no chance, there's
no way to add it later - except just possibly that one - servers need to
be upgraded to use IPv6 transport (which is currently useless for name
resolution in general, as you there are no IPv6 reachable root servers, and
no IPv6 addresses, whatever the RR format, in referrals anywhere that
really matters).

So, that provides us with perhaps one compromise that will allow people
to start deploying more IPv6 in the DNS now, while not completely
shutting the door on A6.

kre