> On 21-sep-2007, at 20:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > >> Obviously this should be fixed. But: you may ask yourself: why > >> is your system doing AAAA lookups when you obviously don't > >> have IPv6 connectivity? Almost all boxes these days have internal IPv6 connectivity. > > Anyone from Microsoft listening? > > > I suppose, in theory, a DNS query over v4 might return an AAAA > > record that _is_ accessible via one of my link-local addresses or > > the loopback address. > > Yeah right. Try again. Don't you have "localhost AAAA ::1" and "localhost A 127.0.0.1" configured in you DNS? > > As long as v6 is _enabled_ on a Windows box, it does AAAA queries, > > even if it has to send them via v4. > > Looks like you're right, and it also seems to be a system-wide thing, > because Safari on Windows also first generates a query for a AAAA > record and then for a A record on XP with IPv6 enabled but with no > local IPv6 router and a private address = no 6to4. > > On the Mac it's A first and then AAAA but only when there's actual > IPv6 connectivity. This won't trigger AAAA related bugs too badly > even when IPv6 is enabled. > > > I'm told WinXP isn't even capable of doing DNS over v6. > > You can't set up an IPv6 address for a DNS resolver, no. > > >>> Whether I can live with that in a particular case depends on what > >>> percentage of the userbase will see "some problems" if that > >>> brokenness is exposed. > > >> Ah yes, the "if enough people do something wrong it becomes > >> right" doctrine. So here in Holland we have "alcohol free" beer > >> that contains 0.5% alcohol, and megabytes are now 1000000 > >> bytes. > > > That complaint doesn't resonate so well when you're writing in a > > language whose "rules" are defined by whatever people do and if > > enough people do something "wrong" it gets reclassified as "right". > > I don't think these redefinitions can be classified as a language issue. > > I'll be happy to repeat my statements in a language that has a > committee that gets to decide what's officially correct in the > language, but I don't think that helps for a variety of reasons, one > being that the committees don't get it right much of the time either. > > > There's a difference between de jure and de facto standards. > > That's not to say that de jure standards are not needed -- they > > obviously are -- but when the majority of people are ignoring them, > > you can't just stick your head in the sand and ignore the de facto > > reality. That _should_ be a sign that the de jure standards need > > rewriting after one reviews _why_ the de facto standard has diverged. > > Within the context of what we're doing in the IETF, that's extremely > simple: programmers are lazy. And if they're not lazy themselves, > their bosses don't give them enough time to do non-lazy work. I know > a programmer who is held in very high regard who will write two extra > pages of code just to do bounds checking for possible a buffer > overflow that can't even happen in the first place, but he never > checks for overflow conditions. If he'd written a TCP implementation, > sessions would break after transmitting (at most) 4 GB of data > because after 4294967295 the TCP sequence number becomes 0 again but > his code doesn't check for this transition. > > Why bother with details like that if you can simply make the field > bigger and let the support people clean up the mess a few years down > the road when you run out of the extra bits? Which brings us back to > the topic of the discussion: why do things the hard way if it's so > easy to put an IP address in a configuration file? > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf