I agree that the status of the RFC has no immediate or direct impact on the real world. But I think it's orthogonal to the *operational* question of how to eliminate the residual A6 records and how to eventually eliminate A6 queries. Mark is completely correct that this would require a plan - but since it's a purely operational matter, presumably it belongs in DNSOP if it belongs anywhere in the IETF.
Marking the RFC as Historic would only be the first step, apparently. Regards Brian On 2011-08-13 05:17, David Conrad wrote: > Mark, > > On Aug 11, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> The root servers are getting 100's of A6 q/s (~20:1 AAAA:A6 >> <http://k.root-servers.org/statistics/GLOBAL/daily/>). > > Yeah, so? The vast majority of the queries hitting the root servers are > useless crap. 100's of A6 qps is in the noise. > >> There is >> still a very large base of A6 using software out there regardless >> of whether they are getting NODATA responses or not. > > And keeping an RFC as experimental is going to change that how? > >> I don't know what percentage of responses are NODATA and what have >> actual A6 records. I do think we need to know answers to these sorts >> of questions. > > Why? What possible difference will it make? > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
