Subject: Re: AAAA/A6 thing

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Apr 2001 05:37:52 -0000

I'm cc'ing this to IPNG. It's up to IPNG to deprecate A6. Furthermore,
standardization activities should not be carried out on namedroppers,
for reasons discussed in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html.

Robert Elz writes:
> undisputed extra flexibility

We all agree that A6 is an extension to the DNS protocol. This does not
mean that it adds flexibility to DNS. Server-side indirection provides
the same functions with no protocol changes.

Paul Vixie writes:
> Hint to whoever is in charge: the time to debate A6's merits at this level
> was: before it got put on the standards track,

That would have been a good time, but now is a good time too.

There is no guarantee that a protocol put on the standards track will
move along that track, or that it will stay on the track. In fact, under
IETF rules, protocols that want to advance are subject to more scrutiny,
not less.

The proponents of A6-everywhere think that they have the right to
deprecate AAAA. So why don't the proponents of AAAA-everywhere have the
right to deprecate A6?

> before a lot of code got written, and before a lot of operational
> deployment was put into various long and expensive pipelines.

So, because you and Microsoft have wasted time on a bad extension, every
other DNS implementor is required to waste time too? Including all
future DNS implementors?

---Dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:32:15 +0859 ()

Ebi;

> hi,
> 
> 	Is there any alternate solution to A6 record
>       being looked at ? Something which lies somewhere
>       in between AAAA and A6. 

A6 is as good as NS.

All you need is an alternative implementation.

Dan's one is broken. Paul's one was and may still be broken.

						Masataka Ohta

---

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:

> 
> >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.
> 
> 	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
>