[DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: Re: Re: Moving DNS64 (RF C6147) to Internet Standard

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:06:19 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dnsop,gmane.ietf.v6ops
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote:
    > It is widely implemented, and there are multiple implementations, but
    > at the same time there very much is a health warning to be carried with
    > it, and its use will (hopefully) decrease over time.  It served a
    > purpose, but we’ve learnt and moved on.

yeah... so the mbone was prematurely killed based upon the same argument.
"We moved on".
So we have no multicast anywhere.  Not even for people with a clue.

IPv6 would have suffered the same fate, when 6bone got
killed, and if not for 6to4 and Teredo, it would have completely failed.
(Even the way in which 6to4 and Teredo were killed was silly)

    > We need that health warning to be clearly stated, noting that DNS64
    > serves a purpose (with caveats) particularly for devices that will
    > never see a host-based shim supported, as Michael points out.

The health warning is entirely appropriate.
Go read RFC2705 for the whopper of health warnings...

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 487 B)