:: Solve it in the browser, which is well-placed to know if there
:: really is connectivity and can even determine if IPv6 (or IPv4)
:: is temporarily broken or abnormally slow:
::
:: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01
::
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:
:: Dual-stack and IPv6-only installations are in some cases broken today.
:: It's unrealistic to say, Let them feel the pain they'll upgrade,
:: because the people this affects are unlikely to be able to understand
:: what is happening to them. As a
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: So, the question now is, what can be done? By no means do I think that
:: lying based on transport is a good idea, however, I simply don't have a
:: better one, and, this is a real problem, which is
On 31 Mar 2010, at 10:10, Andras Salamon wrote:
I don't understand why DNS is seemingly being tasked here with mopping
up the messes of other parts of the network.
+1
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
At 3:28 -0400 3/31/10, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
then that (hopefully about a year before the
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 3:28 -0400 3/31/10, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix
Le 31 mars 2010 à 17:43, Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Mar 31, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
== This hack MUST therefore be flatly rejected.
Unfortunately we don't have any control over what Yahoo or Google do to their
name servers. I agree with you completely on what we SHOULD do, but
Remi,
I hope you do not mind, I have take the liberty to pull some text from your
original post and will reply to them here:
On 3/31/10 10:20 AM, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr wrote:
1.
Yahoo's worry is that some operating systems issue quad-A records by default,
even if the user has
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
::
:: On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
:: behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
:: behavior problem, and we need to engineer
A far better solution would be to instead segregate with different DNS server
IPs.
ISPs already have multiple DNS resolvers (eg, no wildcarding resolvers,
DNSSEC test resolvers). And the ISP knows if its giving out a v6 address or
not for a client and routing IPv6 for that client.
And even
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable browser,
as long as it's going to
On 3/31/10 3:19 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of John Jason Brzozowski
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:38 AM
To: Rémi Després; dnsop
Cc: Ted Lemon; Jason Fesler; Igor Gashinsky
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable
browser,
as long as it's
On 3/31/10 4:37 PM, Igor Gashinsky i...@gashinsky.net wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
[jjmb] this is not what the Free
-Original Message-
From: John Jason Brzozowski
[mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:57 PM
To: Igor Gashinsky; Dan Wing
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
On 3/31/10 4:37 PM, Igor Gashinsky
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
::
:: :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: :: is shipped by Microsoft.
::
:: Why do you say that? As far as I
-Original Message-
From: Igor Gashinsky [mailto:i...@gashinsky.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:19 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; 'Andrew Sullivan'
Subject: RE: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan
On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
Any host that sends its queries over IPv4 would lose
IPv6 connectivity.
Isn't this a misdirection?
I suspect it's more like: any (address family agnostic) clients of a dual
stacked nameserver will (non?) deterministically lose IPv6
:: It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their
:: IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which
:: purposefully breaks responses (returns empty answer), and
:: to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS
:: server which functions normally.
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
then that (hopefully about a year
:: It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their
:: IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which
:: purposefully breaks responses (returns empty answer), and
:: to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS
:: server which functions
It would probably cost be far more money to roll out this separate DNS
server view, have folks monitor it and troubleshoot it, test
and certify it in the lab, etc. than just calling and fixing
the broken users.
There is a way for the ISP to detect IPv6-broken users? (Who can
then be
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Locally-served DNS Zones
Author(s) : M. Andrews
Filename:
On 3/31/10 4:55 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6
On 3/31/10 5:12 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Jason Brzozowski
[mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:57 PM
To: Igor Gashinsky; Dan Wing
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS
Not necessarily, if a dual stack hosts communicates with a recursive name
server over both IPv4 and IPv6 and other conditions are met then I believe
it would be fine based on what was presented.
John
On 3/31/10 5:12 PM, John Payne j...@sackheads.org wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Dan
On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:29 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Not necessarily, if a dual stack hosts communicates with a recursive name
server over both IPv4 and IPv6 and other conditions are met then I believe
it would be fine based on what was presented.
What other conditions need to be met?
I
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:29 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Not necessarily, if a dual stack hosts communicates with a recursive name
server over both IPv4 and IPv6 and other conditions are met then I believe
it would
28 matches
Mail list logo
