<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jeroen Massar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeroen@massar.ch" target="_blank">jeroen@massar.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 2014-10-02 22:37, Ca By wrote:<br>
[..]<br>
<span class="">> Yes, i think .gov requires AAAA records. So it looks like DNS admins<br>
> are generating AAAA records that ultimately break connectivity.<br>
><br>
> Back to my question, should there be an RFC generated that advises<br>
> network admins to only put native natural addresses in DNS for anything<br>
> that is supposed to be production grade and routed across the Internet?<br>
><br>
> Meaning:<br>
><br>
> 1. Only make AAAA records from 2000::/3<br>
<br>
</span>2002::/16 (6to4) is part of that.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> 2. Do not make AAAA records with 6to4 addresses<br>
<br>
</span>See <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6343" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6343</a><br>
and of course also:<br>
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-05</a><br>
(though that technically expired).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Except for quick tests, doing anything with 6to4 is futile.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fully agree on that, 6to4 is the worst and the fact that it was not made historic is a shame.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Clearly though in this case the address never worked. Can't fix problems<br>
between chair and keyboard with documents.<br>
<span class=""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fair</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
> 3. Do no make AAAA records with NAT64 WKP 64:ff9b::/96 ( saw this last<br>
> week )<br>
<br>
</span>One can stuff whatever one wants in DNS, if it breaks though that is the<br>
problem of the operator.<br>
<br>
Greets,<br>
Jeroen<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>