Re: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt

[Alain Durand]

On Mar 15, 2004, at 12:57 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:

(1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree.  Is it expected
that
     whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the
reverse
     DNS tree?  Or not?
I think it is better to leave this question for a separate document 
(which
certainly needs to be written). I don't think we should delay the 
present
document for this.
I think this revolves around a basic question of whether information 
about
centrally-assigned local prefixes should be available to third 
parties.  If
so -- and that is my preference -- then WHOIS information should be 
provided
and DNS delegations should be available, though not mandatory.  
Optional
global DNS delegations may be beneficial to those using local 
addresses to
communicate privately between organizations because it can remove the 
need
for split DNS.
I too would like to see the reverse tree DNS being delegated. However, 
as there is no
structure, the entire /8 to /48 address space would have to be within 
one single zone...
I'm afraid we are going to create a monster zone that will be very 
difficult to sign with DNSsec.

	- Alain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------