On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:36:18PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > (a) use of edns-client-subnet effectively involves a large depth of > undocumented experience and knowledge about specific implementations and > where those specific implementations are used.
> NAT *is* a bad idea. And the amount of global effort required to work around > the differences in every implementation is absurd, now that it has become a > de-facto implementation standard in IPv4 networking. > Indeed, just to emphasise what Joe is saying, there were so many different ways to do NAT things that once the IETF finally decided that it needed to cope with the actual deployed Internet, we had to have a whole WG (BEHAVE) to figure out how everything worked, and write that down. Understanding the DNS is already hard enough without making even more of it a mysterious arcane topic that you can only learn about by hanging out on secret-handshake mail lists. Moreover, we edns0-client-subnet has a code point in the EDNS0 OPT registry. Doug's argument seems to be, "Let's have that code point and let it be mysterious." I think that would be a perverse outcome. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
