Thank you for your comments. I think the word "dual-stack" can mean different states for people.
My understanding was that a client under a NAT64 that can only send IPv6 packets is an IPv6-only client. It may contact IPv4 servers using DNS64 and NAT64, but the client application will be under the illusion that it is contacting an IPv6 server because of the DNS64 translation. So the client is only sending IPv6 packets to the internet. Any other client that uses an IPv4-as-a-Service technology that doesn't use a DNS64 can be considered "dual-stack" as an application on that client machine can send IPv4 packets. In this draft we consider an IPv6 network that uses the DNS64/NAT64 mechanism so all clients are IPv6-only, but the iterative resolver can still access IPv4 authoritative servers by using the translation method. The machine it is hosted on is IPv6-only but the DNS resolver software can perform the translation mechanism. We thought this might be useful to document as we thought that an iterative resolver is the only software that theoretically needs IPv4. Momoka On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 5:31 AM Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > Hi there, > > On Oct 8, 2022, at 13:58, Momoka Yamamoto <momoka....@gmail.com> wrote: > > re: Mark Andrews 's comments > > this is yet another example of why DNS64 should be made historic. > > This is requesting even more support to work around problems introduced > by DN64, a poorly thought out, supposedly short term hack. > > We did not write this draft thinking DNS64 has a problem. > We thought that IPv6-only iterative resolvers not existing because of > IPv4-only authoritative servers is a problem, and wanted a way to solve it > from the resolver side and not only from the network side (e.g. using > 464XLAT). > > > A host connected to a v6 network that has access to v4 networks via > translation mechanisms is a dual-stack host for the purposes of initiating > queries and receiving responses. It is not a v6-only resolver in a > practical sense. > > Another example of such a host might be one which has v4 connectivity, and > which has v6 connectivity through a tunnel. That host is also dual-stack. > > Your document seems to say, in essence, "your resolver should be > dual-stack if it needs to be able to send queries over both v4 and v6". But > this is unsurprising news, since it's basically the definition of > "dual-stack". > > Perhaps I am missing something? > > > Joe >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
