Moin, On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 19:55 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > Which only “works” with trivial configurations. > > What happens if 2.0.0/24 is reachable out interface A and interface B > is IPv6 only with a PREF64?
Then I'd say that it is covered by the point being made <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> and not <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>. The ways to configure one's own network are endless. What if there are two interfaces each with their own PREF64? What if the second Interface only offers reachability for RFC1918? What if the operator has been squatting non-RFC1918 space and the 2.0.0.0/24 reachable via Interface B is _not_ the one they want to use for DNS resolution? I think that all of that is sufficiently covered by <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>. However, to make this more clear, we could add text along the lines of: "Specific operational scenarios may differ. As such, it is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that implementations offer configuration options that allow an operator fine-grained control of prefixes to exclude from PREF64 based address synthesis." The general point, though, was brought forward to me by multiple operators, who are struggling with the current situation, and would appreciate the currently sketched solution. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] Pronouns: he/him/his _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
