Subject: [v6ops] draft-livingood-dns-whitelisting-implications

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:02:34 +1300

These were my private comments on the -00 draft, but they
seem to apply equally to the -01 draft.

   Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-livingood-dns-whitelisting-implications-00.txt
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06:49 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: [email-masked]
References: <[email-masked]>

Hi Jason,

Thanks for writing this. A couple of comments:

> 7.3.6.  Additional Implications If Deployed On An Ad Hoc Basis

Well, how about

  1. Scaling (and manual updates). The cost and error-proneness
     seem very high, especially as you get nearer to...

  2. When at least half of the Internet is white-listed, do you
     flip over to black-listing the other half, and then...

  3. What is the exit strategy? Do you just declare victory and switch
     the whole mechanism off one day?

> 8.3.1.  Solving Current End User IPv6 Impairments

This would IMNSHO be a much more productive use of effort.

...
> 
>    One challenge with this option is the potential difficulty of
>    motivating members of the Internet community to work collectively
>    towards this goal, sharing the labor, time, and costs related to such
>    an effort.  Of course, since just such a community effort is now
>    underway for IPv6, it is possible that this would call for only a
>    moderate amount of additional work.

Yes, and when people see that solving this issue is in their own
self-interest, it may turn out to be considered essential work anyway.

> 
>    [EDITORIAL: More to add?]

Yes. We need to be specific about the root causes of the loss of sessions.
For example, for 6to4 clients, it is often the case that the IPv6 server's
ISP is not providing a route to 2002::/16 that leads to a 6to4 relay willing
to relay traffic. It's in the enlightened self interest of every ISP that
has content providers as customers to provide such a relay. Have they been
told? And so on for each of the root causes.

This needs work; just throwing your hands up and saying "too hard!" isn't
OK. (Which I guess is my gripe with Google.)

The other thing to add is to encourage the "happy eyeballs" approach.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:18:00 +0000

Thanks and noted.  These are in my queue to review for the next version.

Jason

On 11/10/10 11:02 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Subject: Re: I-D 
>Action:draft-livingood-dns-whitelisting-implications-00.txt
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops