> I'm very torn on that, because like it or not DNS64 is stable, > well-defined, and widely implemented. (I'd also prefer to abolish > the problem by abolishing the distinction between Proposed Standard > and Internet Standard, but that's another story.) > > But we still do need co-existence for very practical reasons. That's > why v6ops is developing the IPv6-mostly approach in draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops, > which explicitly says: "Those concerns make DNS64 a suboptimal > and undesirable solution long-term. To eliminate the needs for > DNS64..." etc.
What do we gain by advancing DNS64? It seems that draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops uses DNS64 mainly for discovery of the translation prefix. If DNS64 would be scoped such that it only works for ipv4only.arpa. then there is not a lot of harm in having that as part of a DNS resolver. Having a full DNS64 component only for the purpose of discovering the translation prefix is likely to do more harm than good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
