[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ipng
Subject: Re: ipv6 Digest, Vol 144, Issue 21
From: Badr Harrou <badr.harrou () gmail ! com>
Date: 2016-04-09 14:36:18
Message-ID: CAF0MoH4KaJfDr0HLgDLcaRsgbTRuPgZpKQ2-B+v_YL7SZncYqA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Thanks :)
On 9 April 2016 at 15:32, <ipv6-request@ietf.org> wrote:
> Send ipv6 mailing list submissions to
> ipv6@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ipv6-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ipv6-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ipv6 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: rfc2460bis question (otroan@employees.org)
> 2. RE: rfc2460bis question (Hemant Singh (shemant))
> 3. Re: DNS AAAA for free (Geordie Guy)
> 4. Re: DNS AAAA for free (Sander Steffann)
> 5. Re: DNS AAAA for free (Mark Smith)
> 6. Re: DNS AAAA for free (James R Cutler)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:23:47 -0300
> From: otroan@employees.org
> To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: rfc2460bis question
> Message-ID: <47F880DB-2DE9-4338-97DD-F9BDCDDA6F00@employees.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Let me clarify what my position is, since there are some nuances here.
>
> While a discussion on header insertion may be necessary, it is not in
> context for taking RFC2460 to IS. If a proposal is made, then the working
> group should discuss that in the context of that proposal.
>
> The RFC2460 text has not caused interoperability issues. Which is why I'm
> not convinced this change was required.
>
> The default action, unless we can come to a different agreement, is to
> leave the RFC2460 text unchanged in RFC2460bis.
>
> Please do not view that as if I am condoning header insertion. That would
> have to be future work. RFC2460 is clear that routers should not look
> further into packets than the base IPv6 header.
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 842 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160408/883795f5/attachment.asc
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 21:34:41 +0000
> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
> To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: rfc2460bis question
> Message-ID: <952867b558d2498bb995480710f9302a@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Ole,
>
> Sounds reasonable to me - thanks.
>
> Hemant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 5:24 PM
> To: 6man WG
> Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Bob Hinden; Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Subject: Re: rfc2460bis question
>
> Let me clarify what my position is, since there are some nuances here.
>
> While a discussion on header insertion may be necessary, it is not in
> context for taking RFC2460 to IS. If a proposal is made, then the working
> group should discuss that in the context of that proposal.
>
> The RFC2460 text has not caused interoperability issues. Which is why I'm
> not convinced this change was required.
>
> The default action, unless we can come to a different agreement, is to
> leave the RFC2460 text unchanged in RFC2460bis.
>
> Please do not view that as if I am condoning header insertion. That would
> have to be future work. RFC2460 is clear that routers should not look
> further into packets than the base IPv6 header.
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 17:55:30 +1000
> From: Geordie Guy <geordie@gguy.me>
> To: otroan@employees.org
> Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free
> Message-ID: <07119903-475A-4D7E-848D-3320C1AB546C@gguy.me>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> This is genuinely awesome.
>
> Geordie
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse any unusual brevity or typos while I'm
> on the go.
>
> > On 8 Apr 2016, at 9:27 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> >
> > Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1
> >
> > The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ole
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:55:05 +0200
> From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
> To: otroan@employees.org
> Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free
> Message-ID: <8BE0F8C3-D08E-487E-A12D-508C822337BB@steffann.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi,
>
> > On 08 Apr 2016, at 13:27, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> >
> > Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1
> >
> > The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.
>
> One question: if clients send requests for both A and AAAA records
> simultaneously, how will including the AAAA answer in the A request help?
> The client will just get the AAAA answer twice: once on the A request and
> once on the AAAA request. If lookups were serialised and the A
> request/response was completed before starting the AAAA request it would
> make the second request unnecessary, but that's not what I see in
> practice...
>
> It looks like good intentions, I'm just trying to figure out how this
> would work in practice :)
>
> Cheers!
> Sander
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 455 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/ebc82e8f/attachment.asc
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 23:11:11 +1000
> From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
> To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free
> Message-ID:
> <CAO42Z2wcCNXtOPDNGT8pYL=adMyaj3qu4ZY=
> rUmGWMWCtWRgXg@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 9 Apr 2016 8:55 PM, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > On 08 Apr 2016, at 13:27, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.
> > >
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1
> > >
> > > The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.
> >
> > One question: if clients send requests for both A and AAAA records
> simultaneously, how will including the AAAA answer in the A request help?
> The client will just get the AAAA answer twice: once on the A request and
> once on the AAAA request. If lookups were serialised and the A
> request/response was completed before starting the AAAA request it would
> make the second request unnecessary, but that's not what I see in
> practice...
> >
> > It looks like good intentions, I'm just trying to figure out how this
> would work in practice :)
> >
>
> Having briefly looked at it, it seems there is an efficiency benefit.
> However, answering an A query with both an A and AAAA response might
> incentivise just sending A queries.
>
> Perhaps the opposite would be better - sending an AAAA query would result
> in an AAAA and A answer. That might create a small and subtle incentive to
> use and prefer IPv6, with Happy Eyeballs covering over IPv6 failures.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
> > Cheers!
> > Sander
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/03f3b360/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:32:38 -0400
> From: James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com>
> To: otroan@employees.org
> Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free
> Message-ID: <CFE92148-462D-497A-B633-534AA3CB0ACB@consultant.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> On 08 Apr 2016, at 13:27, otroan@employees.org <mailto:
> otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> >
> > Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1
> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1
> >
> >
> > The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.
>
> In most conversations it is considered polite to answer the question asked
> and not to provide confusing extra data. This proposal violates that.
>
> James R. Cutler
> James.cutler@consultant.com
> PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/c4aad4e5/attachment.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 872 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/c4aad4e5/attachment.asc
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipv6 mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ipv6 Digest, Vol 144, Issue 21
> *************************************
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">Thanks :)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div \
class="gmail_quote">On 9 April 2016 at 15:32, <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org" \
target="_blank">ipv6-request@ietf.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">Send ipv6 mailing list submissions to<br> <a \
href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a><br> <br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6</a><br> or, via email, \
send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org">ipv6-request@ietf.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:ipv6-owner@ietf.org">ipv6-owner@ietf.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ipv6 digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: rfc2460bis question (<a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a>)<br> 2. RE: rfc2460bis \
question (Hemant Singh (shemant))<br> 3. Re: DNS AAAA for free (Geordie Guy)<br>
4. Re: DNS AAAA for free (Sander Steffann)<br>
5. Re: DNS AAAA for free (Mark Smith)<br>
6. Re: DNS AAAA for free (James R Cutler)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:23:47 -0300<br>
From: <a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a><br>
To: 6man WG <<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a>><br>
Cc: Bob Hinden <<a \
href="mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com">bob.hinden@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: rfc2460bis question<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:47F880DB-2DE9-4338-97DD-F9BDCDDA6F00@employees.org">47F880DB-2DE9-4338-97DD-F9BDCDDA6F00@employees.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Let me clarify what my position is, since there are some nuances here.<br>
<br>
While a discussion on header insertion may be necessary, it is not in context for \
taking RFC2460 to IS. If a proposal is made, then the working group should discuss \
that in the context of that proposal.<br> <br>
The RFC2460 text has not caused interoperability issues. Which is why I'm not \
convinced this change was required.<br> <br>
The default action, unless we can come to a different agreement, is to leave the \
RFC2460 text unchanged in RFC2460bis.<br> <br>
Please do not view that as if I am condoning header insertion. That would have to be \
future work. RFC2460 is clear that routers should not look further into packets than \
the base IPv6 header.<br> <br>
Best regards,<br>
Ole<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: signature.asc<br>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br>
Size: 842 bytes<br>
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail<br>
URL: <<a href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160408/883795f5/attachment.asc" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160408/883795f5/attachment.asc</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 21:34:41 +0000<br>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <<a \
href="mailto:shemant@cisco.com">shemant@cisco.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a>" <<a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a>>, 6man WG<br> <<a \
href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a>><br>
Cc: Bob Hinden <<a \
href="mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com">bob.hinden@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: RE: rfc2460bis question<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:952867b558d2498bb995480710f9302a@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com">952867b558d2498bb995480710f9302a@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Ole,<br>
<br>
Sounds reasonable to me - thanks.<br>
<br>
Hemant<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a> [mailto:<a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 5:24 PM<br>
To: 6man WG<br>
Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Bob Hinden; Hemant Singh (shemant)<br>
Subject: Re: rfc2460bis question<br>
<br>
Let me clarify what my position is, since there are some nuances here.<br>
<br>
While a discussion on header insertion may be necessary, it is not in context for \
taking RFC2460 to IS. If a proposal is made, then the working group should discuss \
that in the context of that proposal.<br> <br>
The RFC2460 text has not caused interoperability issues. Which is why I'm not \
convinced this change was required.<br> <br>
The default action, unless we can come to a different agreement, is to leave the \
RFC2460 text unchanged in RFC2460bis.<br> <br>
Please do not view that as if I am condoning header insertion. That would have to be \
future work. RFC2460 is clear that routers should not look further into packets than \
the base IPv6 header.<br> <br>
Best regards,<br>
Ole<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 17:55:30 +1000<br>
From: Geordie Guy <<a href="mailto:geordie@gguy.me">geordie@gguy.me</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a><br>
Cc: v6ops list <<a href="mailto:v6ops@ietf.org">v6ops@ietf.org</a>>, 6man WG \
<<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:07119903-475A-4D7E-848D-3320C1AB546C@gguy.me">07119903-475A-4D7E-848D-3320C1AB546C@gguy.me</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
This is genuinely awesome.<br>
<br>
Geordie<br>
<br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse any unusual brevity or typos while I'm on the \
go.<br> <br>
> On 8 Apr 2016, at 9:27 PM, <a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a> wrote:<br> ><br>
> Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.<br>
> <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1</a><br>
><br>
> The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Ole<br>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a><br>
> Administrative Requests: <a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6</a><br> \
> --------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:55:05 +0200<br>
From: Sander Steffann <<a \
href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a><br>
Cc: v6ops list <<a href="mailto:v6ops@ietf.org">v6ops@ietf.org</a>>, 6man WG \
<<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:8BE0F8C3-D08E-487E-A12D-508C822337BB@steffann.nl">8BE0F8C3-D08E-487E-A12D-508C822337BB@steffann.nl</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
> On 08 Apr 2016, at 13:27, <a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a> wrote:<br> ><br>
> Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.<br>
> <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1</a><br>
><br>
> The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.<br>
<br>
One question: if clients send requests for both A and AAAA records simultaneously, \
how will including the AAAA answer in the A request help? The client will just get \
the AAAA answer twice: once on the A request and once on the AAAA request. If lookups \
were serialised and the A request/response was completed before starting the AAAA \
request it would make the second request unnecessary, but that's not what I see \
in practice...<br> <br>
It looks like good intentions, I'm just trying to figure out how this would work \
in practice :)<br> <br>
Cheers!<br>
Sander<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: signature.asc<br>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br>
Size: 455 bytes<br>
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail<br>
URL: <<a href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/ebc82e8f/attachment.asc" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/ebc82e8f/attachment.asc</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 23:11:11 +1000<br>
From: Mark Smith <<a \
href="mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com">markzzzsmith@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Sander Steffann <<a \
href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>><br>
Cc: 6man WG <<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a>>, v6ops list \
<<a href="mailto:v6ops@ietf.org">v6ops@ietf.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAO42Z2wcCNXtOPDNGT8pYL=adMyaj3qu4ZY=<a \
href="mailto:rUmGWMWCtWRgXg@mail.gmail.com">rUmGWMWCtWRgXg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On 9 Apr 2016 8:55 PM, "Sander Steffann" <<a \
href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote:<br> ><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> > On 08 Apr 2016, at 13:27, <a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a> wrote:<br> > ><br>
> > Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.<br>
> ><br>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1</a><br>
> ><br>
> > The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.<br>
><br>
> One question: if clients send requests for both A and AAAA records<br>
simultaneously, how will including the AAAA answer in the A request help?<br>
The client will just get the AAAA answer twice: once on the A request and<br>
once on the AAAA request. If lookups were serialised and the A<br>
request/response was completed before starting the AAAA request it would<br>
make the second request unnecessary, but that's not what I see in<br>
practice...<br>
><br>
> It looks like good intentions, I'm just trying to figure out how this<br>
would work in practice :)<br>
><br>
<br>
Having briefly looked at it, it seems there is an efficiency benefit.<br>
However, answering an A query with both an A and AAAA response might<br>
incentivise just sending A queries.<br>
<br>
Perhaps the opposite would be better - sending an AAAA query would result<br>
in an AAAA and A answer. That might create a small and subtle incentive to<br>
use and prefer IPv6, with Happy Eyeballs covering over IPv6 failures.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Mark.<br>
<br>
> Cheers!<br>
> Sander<br>
><br>
><br>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a><br>
> Administrative Requests: <a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6</a><br> \
> --------------------------------------------------------------------<br> \
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/03f3b360/attachment.html" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/03f3b360/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:32:38 -0400<br>
From: James R Cutler <<a \
href="mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com">james.cutler@consultant.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a><br>
Cc: v6ops list <<a href="mailto:v6ops@ietf.org">v6ops@ietf.org</a>>, 6man WG \
<<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: DNS AAAA for free<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:CFE92148-462D-497A-B633-534AA3CB0ACB@consultant.com">CFE92148-462D-497A-B633-534AA3CB0ACB@consultant.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
<br>
On 08 Apr 2016, at 13:27, <a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a> <mailto:<a \
href="mailto:otroan@employees.org">otroan@employees.org</a>> wrote:<br> ><br>
> Here is an interesting draft being presented in dnsop today.<br>
> <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1</a> \
<<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/?include_text=1</a>><br>
><br>
> The proposal is to allow AAAA records in response to A queries.<br>
<br>
In most conversations it is considered polite to answer the question asked and not to \
provide confusing extra data. This proposal violates that.<br> <br>
James R. Cutler<br>
<a href="mailto:James.cutler@consultant.com">James.cutler@consultant.com</a><br>
PGP keys at <a href="http://pgp.mit.edu" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">http://pgp.mit.edu</a><br> <br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/c4aad4e5/attachment.html" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/c4aad4e5/attachment.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: signature.asc<br>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br>
Size: 872 bytes<br>
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail<br>
URL: <<a href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/c4aad4e5/attachment.asc" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/attachments/20160409/c4aad4e5/attachment.asc</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ipv6 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6</a><br> <br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of ipv6 Digest, Vol 144, Issue 21<br>
*************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic