Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Thus spake "Alain Durand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > >I meant PA because that is all that is in the implementors and > > >registries' hands today. Actually any form of PI would do (they are > > >all equally unrouteable today). I regard the Hinden/Haberman addresses > > >as an easy-to-create form of PI. > > > > I meant traceable, potentially routable PI. Hinden/Haberman addresses > > are not traceable (in the sense that looking at the prefix I can tell > > who it belongs to), and this is a big difference. > > I also object to this part of the draft as well. IMHO, the registry should > list who the registrant is for a particular prefix, but not allow non-exact > searches.
I think there are privacy and secrecy-by-hiding reasons why this most likely won't happen, for *any* form of unrouted organizational addresses. The escrow proposal is to allow this privacy to be bypassed in extreme cases. > ...Reverse DNS should also be available if particular registrants > want to list servers. By definition, organizational addresses are not used to "list" servers outside the organization. Obviously, the organization's internal DNS will have to treat these addresses as first-class citizens, but I can't see any reason why we would expect reverse DNS for these things in the global DNS. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
