Joao,
Joao Damas wrote:
> Andrei,
>
> there are 2 issues here, one is how to provide transport and another how
> to include records in the root zone (this is the one you are referring
> to but NOT the one this thread started with).
>
Actually how to include records in the root zone is a third issue. I
agree that as long as one maintains a list of statically configured root
servers there is no problem with enabling ipv6 for the root servers.
> There is no reason not to enable IPv6 transport. It is dependant only on
> the operator of the machine.
As I said we don't have definite plans regarding this. At the moment our
main priority is the anycast implementation for K. If ipv6 can be
achieved as a by-product we will probably do it. A few root servers
already provide ipv6 access but I guess that in most cases one will fall
back to ipv4 anyway to resolve a name.
> People will find ways to use the service (the ones who don't already do
> so with the available servers) if the service is available, so the first
> step is to enable the service.
>
> Joao
Thanks,
Andrei
>
>
> On Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003, at 09:00 Europe/Amsterdam, Andrei
> Robachevsky wrote:
>
>> Gert Doering wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:46:01PM +0200, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for the K (being an operator of this server) we don't have
>>>> definite plans for ipv6 deployment. Also there are different views
>>>> on how ipv6 access should be provided to the root zone.
>>>
>>> Could you explain this a bit more? I'm curious what's going on.
>>
>>
>> I was referring to the problem with priming, where one can fit only
>> two AAAA records in the priming response provided that not all DNS
>> implementations support EDNS0 at the moment. One proposal I heard of
>> suggests that two selected root servers provide anycast service in
>> ipv6. I thought it was going to be published as an internet draft but
>> cannot find it.
>>
>>> Gert Doering
>>> -- NetMaster
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>>
>>
