On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Tony Hain wrote: > Again, > unless there is impact to a 3rd party, putting local use addresses in the > global DNS is none of the IETF's business.
If you look at the case 1) below, that for certainty is a case which would impact third parties. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:57 PM > > To: Tony Hain > > Cc: 'Dan Lanciani'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Response to AD comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr- > > 03.txt > > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Tony Hain wrote: > > > I agree with Dan. Unless someone can show explicit harm to a third party > > by > > > putting them in the global DNS, there is no reason to even discuss their > > > presence or absence in the global DNS. > > > > I think there are two (operational -- can't be checked by the > > implementation) cases here: > > > > 1) putting in local addresses to global DNS names which are expected > > to be used by outsiders who are not interested of local > > addresses, or to whom local addresses could even mean a > > service degradation. (e.g., www.example.com, smtp.example.com, > > etc.etc.) > > > > 2) putting in local addresses for names which are not expected to be > > used (e.g., "canada.vpn.example.com", to perform some kind of > > "auto-discovery" functions) except who know which hostnames those > > are and know what they're doing. > > > > In the former, adding them makes very little sense. In the latter, > > adding them might be beneficial, while I'm not sure I can see the > > scenario as I think one might want to use global addresses instead.. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Dan > > > > Lanciani > > > > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:16 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Response to AD comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local- > > addr- > > > > 03.txt > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -- > > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
