<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Kline <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ek@google.com" target="_blank">ek@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><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></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>That is hilariously evil...awesome. The *64 docs should have made some mention about not using the WKP globally.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Actually sections 3.1 and 3.2 of <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052</a> apply here. The implication is that since you can't route more specifics of the WKP you shouldn't put them in DNS, but that latter is still not explicitly, clearly stated.</div></div>