Moin, On Fri, 2025-11-28 at 11:57 +0100, Marco Davids (IETF IMAP) wrote: > > What did you have in mind to include, Marco? > Everything that prevents critics from arguing “IPv4 is flawless and > IPv6 always adds problems” works for me.
Always on board with that. ;-) > A simple (re)phrasing like this might already help: > > "Broken IP Connectivity at the Resolver > Similar to authoritative servers, (stub) recursive resolvers may face > broken IP connectivity, where IPv6 introduces specific challenges, > e.g., if a client has been assigned..." > > I’ll leave the exact wording to the authors; this is just a > suggestion. I took a shot at outlining some points from the discussion in non- normative language, also highlighting that IPv4 and IPv6 each may face independent forms of connectivity issues, esp. for resolvers: https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis/pull/32/files Does this work for you? It explicitly picks up Lorenzo's comment about issues with CGN. > Regarding my earlier comment on using MUST versus SHOULD in > "authoritative DNS servers SHOULD use native IPv6 addresses": I don’t > want to make a big deal out of it and I understand the rationale for > SHOULD. Still, I’d like to note that at the TLD registry I work for, > only native IPv6 addresses are accepted in glue records of NS > servers. > > No Teredo, 6to4, or similar transition mechanisms as we've seen those > fail too often. We’ve even encountered attempts to use addresses from > the 64:ff9b::/96 range, which was obviously a bad idea. > > This is why I raised the concern, but I’m fine keeping the wording as > SHOULD. Ok, thanks! With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
