Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11.txt

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:53:38 +1100

I really wish I had thought of this before w.r.t. DNSSEC.

We really should have added a EDNS option to request the prefixes
that apply to the client.  The server would return this iff it would
have attempted to perform DNS64 synthesis.  Each prefix would be
17 octets with zeros where the mapped address would be.  The 17th
octet is the prefix length.  This allow allow suffix bits to be
specified.

DNS64 synthesis occurs unless this option is set.  No looking at
DO or CD.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:03:28 +1100

> DNS64 synthesis occurs unless this option is set.  No looking at

This also allows applications which are not trying to send packets
a way to get relatively unmolested responses out of a DNS64 resolver
without having to set DO and CD.
 
Mark

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:34 -0700

A document is being published shortly that analyzes the ~8 different
mechanisms for a host to learn its NAT64 prefix -- which a DNSSEC-
validating host needs to know if it wants to do its own DNSSEC 
validation.  Your input regarding DNSSEC towards the ~8 different
mechanisms in that draft would certainly be helpful.

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:54 PM
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave