Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |=> At least you and I agree FWIW :)
|> |Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
|> |why they should be put in the global DNS.
|>
|> One might want to build an overlay network where consenting sites know
|> how
|> to reach each other by constructing dynamic tunnels based on some (yet
|> to
|> be defined) mapping function. Thus the addresses may well be
|> reachable in
|> some sense.
|
|But is this reason enough to have them in the global DNS tree.
Certainly. If they are in the global DNS then the overlay network can be
handled entirely by routers (or even stub hosts) that know how to look up the
mapping and create the tunnels. This is the approach I intend to use if unique
addresses become a reality. If the addresses are not allowed in the global DNS
then multi-faced or multi-rooted DNS (or worse) hacks are required to allow
applications to see the addresses in the first place.
I strongly object to restricting unique addresses from the global DNS. It
seriously compromises their utility and it does nothing to make anyone's
life easier. Applications must already deal with the case of addresses that
are not reachable because of filters. There is no reason to single these
addresses out for second-class treatment.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
