On Apr 9, 2026, at 12:12 PM, Philip Homburg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Brian raised a question about the plan for RFC 6147 [2]. Given >> that DNS64 is also widely implemented and deployed and that >> there is only one minor erratum that does not impact interop >> [3], I think that we can proceed with a status change for RFC6147 >> and progress NAT64/DNS64 as a set this round as well. > > In my opinion we should strongly discourage deploying DNS64. So moving > DNS64 to Internet Standard sends completely the wrong message. > > DNS64 is incompatible with local DNSSEC validation. This combines the > worst of both worlds: something doesn't work both because of DNSSEC and > IPv6.
The functionality of DNS64 is still needed with NAT64 -- it just need not be in a network device but can/should be in the client. An update of DNS64 could emphasize the *function* of DNS64 and could even deprecate (or 'NOT RECOMMEND') network-based DNS64. -d > New deployments of NAT64 should either use some kind of address synthesis in > a library or deploy a CLAT. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
