>If we look at DNS configuration for the v6 part of the world it is at
>present based upon various kinds of ugliness to get around the fact
>that there is almost no hierarchy deployed over v6 transport (starting
>with the lack of roots accessible over v6 transport).
>
>The most common is to use a forwarding configuration to escape over to
>the v4 transport universe with full DNS connectivity.
>
>*All* this will have to change over the coming years if or when or
>wherever we decide to start deploying roots accessible over v6
>transport.
I don't get your argument at all.
Because first part of the IPv6 transition will be toward IPv4/v6
dual stack, AAAA over IPv4 transport works just fine for us.
The history proves that it works fine for us - due to the lack of
IPv6 accessible root, IPv6 accessible ccTLD/gTLD, and lack of IPv6
NS record registration support by many of the registries, we IPv6
users are forced to rely upon IPv4 DNS infrastructure. Luckily,
it works quite well.
total transition to AAAA (or A6) over IPv6 transport is of course
better, however, it needs a major upgrades, including:
- IPv6-ready root
- IPv6-ready ccTLD and gTLD
- IPv6-ready random .com servers
all of them needs to be done before the total transition, so it is
unrealistic to talk about total transition this time.
So, what I'm saying is, AAAA deployment is already so wide enough
(all BIND4/8/9 do support them okay), and for me it is way too late
already to transition to anything else (including A6). If we are
to transition to something other than AAAA, the transition needs to
be coordinated very delicately, like transition from IPv4 to IPv6
and it will take multiple years to do so. We cannot wait any more.
Think DNS transport issue (DNS over IPv6, or IPv4) and DNS payload
issue (AAAA, A or A6) separately. What we are talking about is
mainly the payload issue, though, it affects the deployment of
the IPv6 DNS transport (as NS records need to point to AAAA, or A6).
I guess you are mixing up these two.
itojun
