-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
My main concern would be with actually _running_ the reverse three. If we are not talking about relaying on this for services and infrastructure - who do I call when it breaks? - - kurtis - On 2004-04-10, at 02.37, 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. > > Tony > >> -----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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQHruBqarNKXTPFCVEQLczgCg0H6k9Tfm76EZ9BIHSDjRLH639vQAoOt8 Ir7OcC0RPfs1+/S8PB2M3KNl =fJZR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
