>Right or wrong. Paul's comment is valid. A6 will be deployed at least on
>BIND (well it is now actually) and on Microsofts DNS is my read.
>
>As one of the people to fund BIND future development and with others we
>believe it should not be implemented for greater than 3 levels of
>hierarchy till more testing and experimentation is done. But A6 will be
>shipped on the street and its a done deal.
>
>Do I like A6 no.
>Do I think a better solution exists yes.
>But do I advocate deployment of A6 yes.
>Why because its time to move forward.
>
>I also thought continuing private address space was a bad idea in v6. I
>still do. KNow what I hope to help build that feature in our products.
what I am worrying is that A6 is contributing negatively to the
deployment of IPv6, due to less availability in code. it may have a
positive impact if it gets deployed worldwide (less signing cost on
renumber), but i guess the negative impact (to deployment) is bigger
than the benefits from less signing cost.
today there's no commercial/free software OS (i know of) that ships
with A6-chasing resolver. not sure they will ever migrate to BIND9
resolvers, many of them are still stuck with BIND4 resolver (with
security fixes, of course) because of binary backward compatibility
issues and local changes they have made.
maybe this feeling is because I'm from very IPv6-deployment-aggressive
region. i really would like to see IPv6 NS records to be available
everywhere, including root, and A6 is one of the obstacles for IPv6
NS record deployment.
anyway, i'll shut up and write up a draft.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
