To:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc:
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>, users@ipv6.org, dns op wg <dnsop@cafax.se>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@wasabisystems.com>
Date:
17 Jan 2001 20:34:45 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Randy Bush's message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:24:44 -0800"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: IPv6 dns
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> writes: > >> but perhaps you should communicate TECHNICAL NEEDS to ngtrans, which, > >> depsite rantings and ravings about massive marketplace demands, is the > >> part of ietf where we deal with these things. > > You may recall that I did just that at the ngtrans meeting. > > i do not recall. you may want to get the minutes updated. The minutes gave a one line summary of my original tiresome rant. They aren't particularly accurate, but it is an effort to get them modified. > and, if you really care about getting something done, maybe you should > present the technical argument for what it is you actually need here. The situation is fairly simple. A lot of us would like to be able to deploy v6 only hardware, without depending on v4 translator boxes in various places. If we actually claim to be transitioning to v6, this is not an unreasonable desire, eh? Well, part of being able to actually run v6 is having DNS up and working for real for v6 only machines. Without the DNS, a modern machine is pretty much lost. You can do okay with a dual stack translator box, but if you don't have one, and there are no v6 transport responding roots, you're screwed. Is that a reasonable summary? Now you may argue (reasonably) that you also need lots of other hosts further along in the DNS server hierarchy running v6 as well, and you're right -- but that doesn't lessen the argument for why some of us want roots running v6 transport deployed. -- Perry E. Metzger perry@wasabisystems.com -- Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/