IPv6 & DNS
steve.wilcox at packetrade.com
Sat Jun 30 13:23:37 UTC 2007
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 06:57:30PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> This is one more reason, some OSs may not support IPv6 DNS transport, so you
> need to keep dual stack.
The OS, IPv6, udp/tcp and DNS are all at different layers of the protocol stack.. we are supposed to be able to seamlessly switch out lower layers without the upper layers needing to be aware. This seems to be proving difficult.
> Also, if roots/TLDs do not support yet IPv6, you will need to have at least
> a dual stack DNS in your network.
No, I just wont bother with v6! If this thing doesnt 'just work' why am I going to spend time and effort trying to use it for negative gain?
> I think in the long term we will be there, using IPv6-only in LANs, but
> don't see the reason, at least not an immediate one, unless you've a very
> specific scenario/business case, and then you probably need to have
> translators at the edge, and then it may resolve the DNS issue also for you.
Why would I need it in a LAN? I can use RFC1918 if I want to be an island and then I dont have to put in kludges or talk my users through why their apps arent working, that will also resolve the DNS issue :)
> > De: David Barak <thegameiam at yahoo.com>
> > Responder a: <owner-nanog at merit.edu>
> > Fecha: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > Para: <nanog at merit.edu>
> > Asunto: IPv6 & DNS
> > --- Barrett Lyon <blyon at blyon.com> wrote:
> >> I don't see any v6 glue there... Rather than having
> >> conversations
> >> about transition to IPv6, maybe we should be sure it
> >> works natively
> >> first? It's rather ironic to think that for v6 DNS
> >> to work an
> >> incumbent legacy protocol is still required.
> > Consider that Windows XP (and server 2k3) will not,
> > under any circumstance, send a DNS request over IPv6,
> > and yet they were widely considered "IPv6 compliant."
> > Consider also how long it took to get a working way of
> > telling autoconfigured hosts about which DNS servers
> > to use (without manually entering 128-bit addresses).
> > To me, the above show that the bulk of the actual
> > deployments were in dual-stack or tunnel environments,
> > and greenfield implementations were few and far
> > between. There's a surprising amount of unexplored
> > "here be dragons" territory in IPv6, given how long
> > some very smart people have been working on it.
> > -David Barak
> > David Barak
> > Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
> > http://www.listentothefranchise.com
> > ______________________________________________________________________________
> > ______
> > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail,
> > news, photos & more.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
More information about the NANOG