Subject: Re: Advancing AAAA to Full standard ?

From: David Blacka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:09:29 -0500

On Nov 14, 2005, at 3:24 PM, John Levine wrote:

>> It's possible that the rationale in RFC 3226 is wrong, that larger
>> message sizes aren't necessary.  On the other hand, I wonder if
>> requiring [EDNS0] might make it possible to sneak AAAA's into the
>> root zone.
>
> Could you clarify "sneak" ?

I presumed that Ed was referring to using AAAA records for the root  
servers themselves, where sizing is an issue, e.g., a AAAA record for  
b.root-servers.net.

However, I must not have eaten my Wheaties(tm) this morning because I  
am failing to understand how mandating EDNS0 for AAAA records would  
even work at this late date.  Would servers give back different  
answers if queried without EDNS?

--
David Blacka    <[email-masked]>
Sr. Engineer    VeriSign Applied Research

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Nov 2005 16:30:21 -0500

> servers themselves, where sizing is an issue, e.g., a AAAA record for

Since resolvers typically have the addresses of the roots configured in a
hints file, why is that an issue?  I realize they should query and get an
updated set of addresses, but so what?

> answers if queried without EDNS?

I suppose they might leave out some of the additional records to keep the
response under 512 bytes, thereby adding a trickle of additional traffic.
The response for the root with authority and additional records is
currently 493 bytes, so it'd take additional queries to find AAAA records
for them.  Considering how what a tiny fraction of root traffic is this
sort of root refresh query, do we care?

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:39:16 +1100

I worried about advancing AAAA as it alone does not reflect
	the status of addresses assigned to a IPv6 node.

	IPv6 has both active and deprecated addresses and we don't
	have a way of reflecting these states in the DNS.

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

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:12:43 -0500

At 16:30 -0500 11/14/05, John R Levine wrote:
>Quoting David

Yeah, David is right.  Yeah, there are AAAA's for delegations from 
the root.  I've just been waiting for the root servers to start 
having AAAA's (and DNSSEC).

So what? - Configured data goes stale.  It's better to have them 
listed in the zone.

>sort of root refresh query, do we care?

One of the first commandments of the DNS protocol is to put the 
entire response for the root SOA, authority and additional in one 
packet.  It's my understanding that the problem of getting AAAA's for 
the root servers is doing so while obeying that commandment.

What would happen if we dropped that commandment?  Would things still 
work?  Would that get AAAA's into, okay, root-servers.net?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

3 months to the next trip.  I guess it's finally time to settle down and
find a grocery store.