Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Thomas Narten wrote: >> And help me understand how this equates to the AS112 issues. For sites >> that (today) get PI space and don't actually advertise it to the >> internet, aren't the DNS issues _exactly_ the same? > > IMHO, if reverse DNS is provided, it should be required that the > authoritative DNS servers have non-ULA addresses. I think Mark was > assuming that ULA address for authoritative delegation point might be > OK, which would lead to issues if the ULA address is not reachable from > everywhere where reverse DNS lookups should succeed.
What is the point of that? How can a ULA address reach a global unicast address or for that matter, how is such a ULA address, which is most likely going to be the sole user of those reverse servers going to contact any of the root servers, .arpa servers, RIR servers etc to actually find out where that server is located in the first place? Are those people going to do NAT from their ULA space? Then please directly kill this whole ULA proposal completely. If NAT is involved in anyway it should never see daylight. Also, registered the DNS servers in the global DNS thus means that those machines will be Internet connected, then what is the point of ULA again? Another point here is that when there will be ULA registrations in the reverse tree, then there will also be ULA AAAA's in the forward tree, oh boy we are going to have a nice mess there... I really can't see how 'registering DNS servers in the global root' is going to be beneficial to having 'local' address space. It will only wreak a lot of problems and cause people to do NAT. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
