Re: Situation with draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03.txt

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Nov 18, 2004, at 10:59 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> > There is another aspect, which is what to publish in the DNS, and 
> > this is where there is overlap with the draft in DNSop "don't publish 
> > unreachable". Essentially, publishing IPv6 addresses in the global 
> > DNS when one does not have global IPv6 connectivity is no different 
> > than publishing IPv4 RFC1918 type addresses...
>
> Agree.  This was a tricky document with no clear progress at dnsop 
> meeting.  Someone should take it up, and document the issues with 
> general unreachable address publication, as well as tradeoffs with ULA 
> or similar addresses in the DNS.

Tim Chown & I have half committed to take that one

> > About default address, there is an issue for apps that are using UDP 
> > and are (miss?)configured with an unreachable literal IPv6 address. 
> > This is typically the case for a DNS stub-resolver that is configured 
> > with a list of literal addresses. We had to introduce an extra rule 
> > to take care of that.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit what you mean by that?

I have to take my previous statement back, I was a bit confused.
I meant to refer to the suggested rule 2.5 for address selection in
section "2.1  Problems with Default Address Selection for IPv6"
of draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03.txt

It essentially says that choosing a src address with different 
reachability
properties than the destination address (here src = link local, dst = 
global,
but there might be other bad combinations with ULA) is a bad idea.

	- Alain.