RE: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> > We know that EDNS0 works. Mark did a good description of the present
> > state. I see nothing to the contrary. It is A Good Thing to endorse
> > EDNS0 in a document like this, because it could speed up deployment. 
> 
> I am not an expert with EDNS0, but reviewing this thread, it seems
> that the client support for EDNS0 is what is lacking, most servers
> support it already.  What I think this means is that a SHOULD in
> the requirements shouldn't cause operational difficulties.  If I
> am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0
> as a SHOULD?  If we do this, we may get more clients to support
> EDNS0.

As practically zero stub resolvers enable EDNS0 by default (I don't
know of any) and only a few implement it at all, I think it is
premature to say that we know it "just plain works" (without any
adverse effects etc.).

I don't think we have much real deployment experience, from the node 
perspective, yet.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------