Mark,
At 01:22 PM 12/01/2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It costs real money to absorb the load. > > Well understood. But it will be a while before this goes mainstream.
The point is that we really will want to legitimise what as112 will have to do. To tell the users of these addresses that they SHOULD / MUST configure their nameservers to cover atleast the ULA addresses they can route to (not only their own addresses). To tell ISP's that they can configure their caching servers to respond to any queries that leak from their clients. To tell those that don't use ULA's that they can configure their servers to answer these queries and that they won't cause problems.
To tell users of ULA's that it is safe for them to setup their own versions of C.F.IP6.ARPA and D.F.IP6.ARPA.
To make it legitimate for nameserver vendors to pre-configure there servers to block these zones with appropriate knobs to turn them off.
I think what you are proposing is a good idea, but it is out of scope for the ULA draft itself. It would be good if you put it into a new internet draft that described this and the general issues regarding putting ULAs in the global DNS. DNSOPS is a probably a better venue as there are more DNS experts there than in IPv6, but the first step is to produce the draft.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
