Client side support for EDNS0 in stub resolvers has not been critical with IPv4 because the addresses are smaller than in IPv6. We have known for a long time that adding AAAA RRs to the mix is likely to push us over the packet size limits. See RFC 3226: it needs updating (A6 RRs rather than AAAA RRs) but it is a proposed standard.
So, in summary, I do not agree with Pekka about changing this SHOULD to a MAY. Changing it to a MUST, perhaps. :)
So we should be encouraging people to include it in their IPv6 implementations. Hence a SHOULD for EDNSO in IPv6 node requirements as currently written. Or as you suggest a SHOULD++. :-)
Thanks, Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
