[dns-operations] which breakage is this? FreeBSD.org / systemd-resolved

[Mark Andrews]

> On 2 Nov 2020, at 16:29, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:18:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> 
>> DNS64 also required every validating device to know about DNS64.
> 
> I know you have maintained this essentially since the beginning, but I never understood the claim and I still don't.  If what you mean is that it requires every validating device _to be deployed inside a NAT64_ to know about DNS64, well, then, yes.  That was quite explicit in its documentation, and I don't see what's wrong with that.  NAT64/DNS64 was intended to be a bridge technology for people who couldn't just dual stack, and it was always expected to be largely managed by the network provider.  I never thought that was a great model, but the very fact that we had "NAT" in the name sort of gave the game away IMO.  My hope, at least, was to make it good-ish enough that it solved some problems while it was still sucky enough that it inspired more real v6 deployment.  I will leave to others to determine whether that aspiration was reasonable.

Is there a validating device (by type) that does not get deployed
or attempt to be deployed behind a DNS64 somewhere in the world
excluding public recursive servers?

DNS64 is deployed on cellular networks.
DNS64 is deployed on wireline networks.

DNS64 and NAT64 are NOT required to provided to provided IPv4AAS.  We
had technology that could do that before DNS64 and NAT64 existed.

Mark

> Best regards,
> 
> A (only for myself)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org