On 1 Apr 2010, at 16:18, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
Why don't yahoo approach the problem the same way google has done for
IPv6 to www.google.com? They only hand out AAAA records for this name
to ISPs who can demonstrate they have solid IPv6 connectivity. This
is
ugly and distasteful. But it doesn't involve egregious damage to the
DNS or resolver/cache behaviour.
Do you really think this is better than what Igor's proposing?
Yes. Although it is unpalatable, it's the lesser of two evils IMO.
What google are doing is essentially split DNS IIUC. AAAA records for
www.google.* are only returned to ISPs who have some sort of IPv6
peering with them. The decision to supply IPv6 data isn't based on
whether the query came in over IPv6 or not.
I do have reservations about this approach because it's not just
another sticking plaster over the gaping chest wound that is
widespread IPv6 deployment. It's another way to avoid tackling that
bigger issue or deferring it.
I think a principled position can be taken that giving out wrong
answers should not be done, but once you've decided that you're
willing to give out wrong answers, we're really just haggling over
the price.
I agree with your point about the haggling Ted. I'm not so sure we
agree on the definition of a wrong answer.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
