Hi there,
On Oct 8, 2022, at 13:58, Momoka Yamamoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> re: Mark Andrews 's comments
> > this is yet another example of why DNS64 should be made historic.
> > This is requesting even more support to work around problems introduced by
> > DN64, a poorly thought out, supposedly short term hack.
>
> We did not write this draft thinking DNS64 has a problem.
> We thought that IPv6-only iterative resolvers not existing because of
> IPv4-only authoritative servers is a problem, and wanted a way to solve it
> from the resolver side and not only from the network side (e.g. using
> 464XLAT).
A host connected to a v6 network that has access to v4 networks via translation
mechanisms is a dual-stack host for the purposes of initiating queries and
receiving responses. It is not a v6-only resolver in a practical sense.
Another example of such a host might be one which has v4 connectivity, and
which has v6 connectivity through a tunnel. That host is also dual-stack.
Your document seems to say, in essence, "your resolver should be dual-stack if
it needs to be able to send queries over both v4 and v6". But this is
unsurprising news, since it's basically the definition of "dual-stack".
Perhaps I am missing something?
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
