[dns-operations] Signaling client protocol to authority

[Doug Barton]

Patrick,

You may want to dial down a few notches. I don't think Jim was engaging 
in name calling, I think he was trying to tell you that some people 
_have_ thought about it, and consider what you're trying to do a bad 
idea. This should have been number 4) on your list, but wasn't.

I've read the thread and was planning to avoid responding until I saw 
this message from you. FWIW, my sympathies lean towards Ed's response 
today. I do agree that it's a problem, but as the days go by and v6 is 
deployed more widely, and at different locations in the chain, the 
question of "what transport did the user make the DNS request over?" 
becomes not only less interesting, but increasingly misleading. The 
right answer here _is_ actually to fix applications (and OS') to not ask 
for address records that they cannot use.


Doug


On 01/16/2011 18:11, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2011, at 13:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any ideas or efforts for a recursive NS to signal the
>>> authoritative NS whether the client used v4 or v6 to request the
>>> record?
>>
>> Some DNS people consider this concept an Evil and/or Stupid DNS
>> Trick and a very bad idea.
>
> Jim: I asked a serious question, I was hoping for serious answers,
> not 3rd grade name calling.
>
> Your 3 responses below boil down to 1) "I don't know how to do it"
> (which I guess is fine since I don't either, but is far from a useful
> answer), 2) shows a deep misunderstanding of the question at hand,
> and 3) Jim thinks we should never extend or update the DNS because it
> will never work.  Or, more succinctly, no answers at all.
>
> The question was serious, and I guess I got a serious answer back.
> Namely: No, no one has thought about this.  So thanx for at least
> that much.  Although, in all honesty, I worry that if I asked about,
> say, client IP address signaling, you would simply explain why it was
> bad without mentioning that there was (maybe still is?) an I-D on it.
> And it saddens me that I have even the tiniest doubt about this.
>
>
> Changes _are_ going to happen.  You can work with them, or you can
> stand in an ivory tower and call them names.  Put another way, when
> someone reaches out in good faith and with good will, perhaps you
> could do the same.  The alternative is being left behind.
>
> Remember, it is quite possible, even probable, that Stupid DNS Tricks
> current direct more traffic on the 'Net than "pure" DNS.  And the
> percentage is growing.  In fact, it could be argued that without
> Stupid DNS Tricks the Internet could not have gotten to where it is
> today.  Ignoring the change did not seem to have the desired effect.
> Perhaps it is time to re-think your position?
>



-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/