> % > How do applications get addresses? In my experience, a lot of > % > them get them out of the DNS. But, if we put SLs into the > % > DNS, we have to have split DNS... > % > % We need to do that anyway, because there is no valid reason to leak > % filtered addresses outside of their scope of routability. Ambiguity is > % the ruse that is use to make this an issue, but the real issue is that > % resolving a name to an address that is not routable from that point is a > % broken concept. Even if a site uses global scope addresses for its > % internal use nodes & applications, a name resolution that includes both > % filtered and unfiltered addresses will cause applications that falsely > % assume a single address scope to fail. > % > % Tony > > This is something else that seems to have crept out of the > woodwork. Split DNS. Doe folks really think that this > "feature" is going to be required in addition to mandating > a functional DNS? > > If so, what does this say to/about the IAB statement on the > requirement for a single DNS context?
There are alternatives to split DNS. I would hope that the WG would take up those alternatives if it keeps site-local. They would be useful even with the alternatives to site-local by putting reachability information into the DNS. However now in not the time to debate this. Lets get site-local decided first. Mark -- Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------