AAAA, A6, or both?

[Michael Kjorling]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is not quite true. At least BIND 8.3.0 on NT will happily serve a
zone with both AAAA (obviously) and A6 RRs (though 8.2.5 won't).
However, I have no idea if it will follow A6 chains during resolution.
But at least this shows that BIND 9 is not mandatory if you want to
support A6 RRs in the DNS.

Then I'd consider it a bigger problem that *none* of the root servers
support IPv6 records, IPv6 transport, or publishes DNSSEC records.

But this is just my two cents for the moment.


Michael Kjörling


On Jan 18 2002 13:16 -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote:

> Very few service providers have upgraded their production DNS to handle A6
> so I suspect the vast majority of DNS currently in operation will still
> barf on A6 RRs.  If I recall correctly, BIND 8.x and earlier, for example,
> will reject an entire zone if it sees RRs it doesn't understand, so it's
> not likely you'll see A6 become widespread until BIND 9.x is more widely
> deployed on DNS operating as secondary nameservers.

- -- 
Michael Kjörling  --  Programmer/Network administrator  ^..^
Internet: michael@kjorling.com -- FidoNet: 2:204/254.4   \/
PGP: 95f1 074d 336d f8f0 f297 6a5b 2aa3 7bfd 8a70 e33e

"There is something to be said about not trying to be glamorous
and popular and cool. Just be real -- and life will be real."
(Joyce Sequichie Hifler, September 13 2001, www.hifler.com)

*** Thinking about sending me spam? Take a close look at
*** http://michael.kjorling.com/spam/ before doing so.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Public key is at http://michael.kjorling.com/contact/pgp.html

iD8DBQE8SVDdKqN7/Ypw4z4RAveCAKCqnr/c83FffFlBBHcEkrHZK1vRYQCdHt2u
zznfvDSqwLE9HUZKYXUH93g=
=ynNY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----