DNAME issues (was Re: ip6.int deprecation)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 9-mei-2006, at 13:01, Nick Hilliard wrote:

>> Wouldn't having a DNAME record for ip6.int be a very good way to
>> uncover DNAME brokeness without real trouble?

>> Since when does DNAME need testing?

> ???

Testing is what you do to find problems. If you know the problems are  
there, it's no longer testing. If it were, then pretty much  
everything we do could be considered testing. For instance, having a  
chat with b.root-servers.net:

13:07:48.739256 IP (tos 0x0, ttl  48, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF],  
length: 464) 192.228.79.201.53 > 82.192.90.27.59886:  24038*-  
13/0/13 . NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET., .[|domain]

The observant reader will note that on this UDP packet the DF bit is  
set. A slightly more observant reader will note that in IPv4, setting  
the DF bit on UDP packets guarantees breakage if the packet  
encounters a link with an MTU smaller than the packet's size.

0.0.0.0/0 is a much bigger mess than 3ffe::/16 ever was.