Re: Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



apparently there is not “enough consensus”, since several roots don’t have published v6 addresses.
there -might- be rough consensus in a narrow slice of the technical community that has an axe to grind.
end of the day, the IETF has no say on how people operate their networks/services.

if you think it should, i’d like to see a resolution of the DMARC deployment that requires all SMTP
servers to require, per IETF mandate to support DMARC.

Engineering is not Operations.   This is not the IOTF.

/bill
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 29May2014Thursday, at 13:18, Carlos M. Martinez <carlosm3011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST
> support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to
> move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future
> networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the
> burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers.
> 
> If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or
> do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a
> fragile position.
> 
> IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of
> the IETF.
> 
> Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server
> operators who chose to ignore this MUST.
> 
> IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be
> possible to even say so in the proposed document.
> 
> cheers!
> 
> ~Carlos
> 
> On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.
>>> 
>>> I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to workload
>>> among hardware.
>> 
>> Yes, that is my view as well.
>> 
>>> Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
>>> responders.
>>> I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and v6 be
>>> answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
>>> different locations.
>>> 
>>> I think that the current text captures this just fine:
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
> 






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]