At 16:45 -0400 3/30/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought I saw you in the DNSOP meeting in Anaheim where this was outlined?
Doesn't mean I was paying attention. Didn't you notice that there were three light bulbs out in the ceiling. (No, just joking.)
Anyway, the problem right now is not that the end host can't decide, but that the end host is deciding _wrong_: it does DNS over v4, tries to use v6, but is in fact broken on v6 and therefore won't get the communication it desires. So what we're trying to cope with is real breakage in real deployed stuff really on the Internet. This is not a theoretical exercise in preferring IPv6. It's an exercise in trying to do the least-bad thing, given that there is a tiny minority of hosts (which represents a large number of eyeballs) who are having trouble today.
Yeah, that's what I thought the problem to be, and yes, the end host is doing the wrong thing today. That doesn't mean DNS should be used to correct that. The end host ought to be fixed - by removing it's bias towards v6.
So - "does DNS over v4, tries to use v6" should be "does DNS over v4, tries to use v6 and v4 simultaneously" - that's what I'm trying to say.
Dual-stack and IPv6-only installations are in some cases broken today. It's unrealistic to say, "Let them feel the pain & they'll upgrade," because the people this affects are unlikely to be able to understand what is happening to them. As a result, people are going to do something bad for the DNS (especially over the long term) unless we find some other thing to suggest to them.
It's not a DNS problem, right? It is bad behavior in hosts that try v6 first or only that is the issue. The solution is to stop the end host bias.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 New pithy statement under construction... _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
