Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:31:44PM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > Please.  We have been through this part of the discussion half a year ago,
> > and we've asked those that know (the DNS WG) and they tell us "we can't
> > rely on EDNS0, and truncation is bad".  It would be very helpful if you
> > could do us the favour and read up on old arguments in the archives.
> 
> Really?  I always got the sense of earlier comments (not here, though
> -- I seem to recall this from IETF circles) saying that if you're
> running so newfangled software that you speak IPv6 you would be
> expected to also implement EDNS0.

I don't see the connection.

The set of NS records returned by the root name servers for ".de" needs
to be small enough so that the results fit into a non-EDNS0-UDP response
packets, no matter whether the client can do IPv6 or not - even very
old clients should get a complete answer.

OTOH, I am way out of my technical league here - I refer to the DNS WG,
and they said "don't do this".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  81421

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234