On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:29 AM, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
> 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.
Oh... So instead of the google "this is a whitelist of nameservers of
ISPs who promise to fix brokenness" this is a proposal to give ISPs a
tool to then build a whitelist of ISPs who promise to only ask for
AAAA if the end user asked over ipv6.
Seems to me like the first whitelist will lead to problems actually
getting fixed and the second will lead to a small whitelist :/
I really do get the concern about losing eyeballs... I'm just afraid
of too many whitelists founded on broken promises :)
John
On 3/31/10 5:12 PM, "John Payne" <j...@sackheads.org> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
Any host that sends its AAAA 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
connectivity to
DNS-determined destinations.
ie, even if I only send DNS over IPv6 to my recursive nameserver,
if it is
dual stacked (often beyond my control), and for this specific query
it prefers
IPv4, then I will not get an answer for my AAAA under this proposal.
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=========================================
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
