Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] DNSsec in IPv6-only-hosts & discarding mapped AAAAs inDNS64

From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:10:21 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Rémi Després <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] DNSsec in IPv6-only-hosts & discarding mapped AAAAs inDNS64
> To: "Mark Andrews" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'Dan Wing'" <[email-masked]>, "'Behave WG'" <[email-masked]>, "'Fred Baker'" <[email-masked]>, "Xu Xiaohu" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 4:44 AM
> Mark Andrews  -  le (m/j/a)
> 5/6/09 11:14 PM:
> > In message <[email-masked]>,
> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= write s:
> >> What I propose concerns only hosts that are purely
> IPv6. (They cannot synthesize AAAAs from As because, being
> supposed not to query for As, they don't receive any). The
> new rule is then a complement which concerns dual stack
> hosts in IPv6 networks. Agreed?
> 
> > Not querying for A's on a IPv6 only host when there
> are no AAAA's is
> >  idiotic.
> 
> What has been clearly missing is a common understanding of
> what is a
> "purely IPv6" host. It was understood to be "a host in
> which nothing reflects that IPv4 ever existed". (A host that
> has a dual stack OS and only an IPv6 local address is NOT
> "purely IPv6".)
> 
> With this understanding, it is supposing that a purely IPv6
> host queries for As that becomes... what you say ;-).

> 
> Working now on "purely IPv6" hosts may look premature to
> some, in view of other priorities, but doing it while
> working on transition strategies should at least not be
> considered unreasonable.

Not premature at all.  NAT64 and DNS64 will be instrumental in helping me launch IPv6 only devices at T-Mobile USA in the near term.  The mobile device with only an IPv6 address is an important and relevant use case that can be deployed in the real world relatively quickly with few dependencies, assuming NAT64 and DNS64 move forward quickly.

> 
> > The same is true in reverse.
> 
> I didn't get the point. Clarification?
> 
> 
> > Lots of problems have been caused by that rule.
> 
> Which rule?
> 
> 
> > You need to know whether a host exists or not *and*
> whether it is
> > reachable or not. This is especially true when search
> lists are
> > involved.  You want the unqualified name to refer
> to the same machine
> > whether you are IPv4 only, dual stack or IPv6 only.
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> > One could add MX and SRV (basename) to the list as
> well.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> RD
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

Regards,

Cameron Byrne
Principal Engineer
T-Mobile USA