-------- Original Message --------
What did you have in mind to include, Marco?
Everything that prevents critics from arguing “IPv4 is flawless and IPv6
always adds problems” works for me.
A simple (re)phrasing like this might already help:
"Broken IP Connectivity at the Resolver
Similar to authoritative servers, (stub) recursive resolvers may face
broken IP connectivity, where IPv6 introduces specific challenges, e.g.,
if a client has been assigned..."
I’ll leave the exact wording to the authors; this is just a suggestion.
Regarding my earlier comment on using MUST versus SHOULD in
"authoritative DNS servers SHOULD use native IPv6 addresses": I don’t
want to make a big deal out of it and I understand the rationale for
SHOULD. Still, I’d like to note that at the TLD registry I work for,
only native IPv6 addresses are accepted in glue records of NS servers.
No Teredo, 6to4, or similar transition mechanisms as we've seen those
fail too often. We’ve even encountered attempts to use addresses from
the 64:ff9b::/96 range, which was obviously a bad idea.
This is why I raised the concern, but I’m fine keeping the wording as
SHOULD.
Thanks!
--
Marco
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
