Thus spake "Geoff Huston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 05:52 PM 7/07/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > ... Given the > >>inevitability of collisions in the locally-assigned space, it doesn't seem > >>logical to allow them in the global reverse tree. > > > >There is no inevitability - on the contrary, there is a very low > >probability. But I agree with the conclusion, since I don't think > >either kind of ULA has any business in the global DNS. > > But we appear to be on last call with a document that recommends > all flavours of ULA can have PTR records in the global DNS. > (and the collision probability for locally assigned ULA's PTR records > is the birthday probability, which exceeds 0.5 for 1.24 million entries.) > i.e. at least for the local assigned ULAs global DNS PTRs appears to > me to be something you don;t want to put in the global DNS.
I never intended locally-generated addresses to be in the global DNS, either forward or reverse, but there is nothing wrong with them being in a local DNS (via split horizon) if desired. At least some of the text applying to centrally-assigned addresses is only in the locally-generated draft and should have been moved, copied, or modified. Did I miss the split drafts being circulated on this list before they were sent for Last Call? S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
