6to4 in Internet aaaa records
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 3 04:58:17 CEST 2014
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at massar.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 22:37, Ca By wrote:
> > Yes, i think .gov requires AAAA records. So it looks like DNS admins
> > are generating AAAA records that ultimately break connectivity.
> > Back to my question, should there be an RFC generated that advises
> > network admins to only put native natural addresses in DNS for anything
> > that is supposed to be production grade and routed across the Internet?
> > Meaning:
> > 1. Only make AAAA records from 2000::/3
> 2002::/16 (6to4) is part of that.
> > 2. Do not make AAAA records with 6to4 addresses
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6343
> and of course also:
> (though that technically expired).
>From my reading of RFC6343 it is not clearly stated that one should not
produce AAAA records with 6to4 addresses. The wording is unclear IMHO.
> Except for quick tests, doing anything with 6to4 is futile.
Fully agree on that, 6to4 is the worst and the fact that it was not made
historic is a shame.
> Clearly though in this case the address never worked. Can't fix problems
> between chair and keyboard with documents.
> > 3. Do no make AAAA records with NAT64 WKP 64:ff9b::/96 ( saw this last
> > week )
> One can stuff whatever one wants in DNS, if it breaks though that is the
> problem of the operator.
There in lies the problem. I have received escalations in the last few
days on my eyeball network regarding internet servers with 6to4 in DNS and
NAT64 WKP in DNS. In the WKP case, the server operator read the RFCs and
tried to pursued me to his understanding of those RFCs that i should route
and support WKP to my NAT64 and that he was doing the right thing by
putting the WKP as RR in his DNS files.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ipv6-ops