[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Gert Doering gert at space.net
Mon Nov 14 23:46:11 CET 2005
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 at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]