Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary

[Nathan Jones <nathanj@optimo.com.au>]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:24:30AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
>% I think that such evolution will quickly move from the realm of clear
>% possibilities to "things that simply will not happen" as the base of
>% resolvers that serve AAAA clients but doesn't do AAAA synthesis grows.
>
>	Lets see, pretty much every resolver "shipped" since 1996
>	has AAAA support but does not do A4synth. One could infer
>	that this is a fairly large base.

A large base of software that handles AAAA, but not necessarily a
large base of DNS administrators using AAAA records.

Probably the majority of sysadmins have not yet dealt with IPv6. When
they start, they will look to standards for guidance.  If we leave A6
on the standards track now, it will become natural to use A6. This can
drive deployment of resolvers which do AAAA synthesis.

By contrast, if we remove A6 from the standards track now, then there
is no incentive to implement support for AAAA synthesis. If we then
turn around and say "we do need A6 after all", there is little
momentum to implement and deploy A6.

>	Hum... while using this arguement to try and reach consensus
>	may be fraught with danger, the basic premise, that the Internet
>	is evolutionary, e.g. "we can always upgrade later" is a 
>	core concept in many peoples minds.  

While "we can always upgrade later", it seems to me to be odd that we
would plan it that way. If 128 bit IP addresses had been specified a
year or so after IPv4 came out, would a working group then have said
"we probably don't -really- need it - let's deprecate it and encourage
32 bit addresses instead"?

Standards are sometimes created but not used. But at least the
standard is available if a need arises.

A6 is already on the standards track and people want to deprecate it before
it has been given a chance. If the specification is not worthy, perhaps
the "market" will decide to ignore it, but at least it is available. 

--
nathanj