Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:31 AM 12/6/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|+ Advertising locally assigned ULA AAAA records in the global DNS is
|+ MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|+ to unexpected connections.
I strongly object to making this a "MUST NOT," ...
OK. Lot of shouting since this was sent but not much new text.
How about
Locally assigned ULA AAAA records MUST NOT appear in the global DNS,
since there is an extremely small probability that the corresponding
addresses are not unique. Even though these addresses will be
unrouteable in the global Internet, their leakage via DNS is highly
undesirable. Such AAAA records MAY appear in local regions of the DNS
corresponding to their region of routeability.
(And I would put an equivalent SHOULD NOT on centrally assigned ULAs.)
I disagree. SHOULD NOT is sufficient, as it was (is) for RFC 1918. I
also would remove the "highly" in "highly undesirable". The leak of such
an address is not serious. Though such leakage has occurred occasionally
with IPv4, the world has not ended. While I understand a strong desire
to "get it right this time with IPv6," I don't see this particular issue
as one where the result will be anything more than annoying prospective
adopters of IPv6 with no good reason.
Personally, I could accept either MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT, and don't feel
strongly about "highly." I hope the chairs can declare a consensus...
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
