Mark - do you have any estimate of the current use of A6 records? I'd like to get an idea of the scope of the impact of moving A6 records to Historic.
- Ralph On Aug 12, 2011, at 12:56 AM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter writes: >> On 2011-08-12 11:47, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> I think it is make work >> >> That's why I am only suggesting an IESG decision, not a draft >> and an RFC. >> >>> and won't change the amount of confusion. >>> In addition A6 allows compresssion of the domain name in the rdata >>> so it can't be treated as unknown (i.e. a opaque blob) by nameservers. >> >> If it's historic, servers shouldn't even contain any A6 records, >> surely? > > Making something historic doesn't remove the old software or the > old records. Removing knowledge of A6 from recursive server will > result in garbage A6 records being delivered to old clients that > are A6 aware. A6 aware clients still work as they ask for both > AAAA and A6 records. > > One needs a phase out plan if you want to remove A6 support and it > is likely to need to be decades long given how long people run old > nameservers for. > >>> If one wants to do something about IPv6 addresses in the DNS add >>> support for scoped addresses. Link-local could then be useful. >> >> Different topic, and I suspect much more complex. >> >> Brian > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
