> I see Thomas' argument for tolerating occasional use of AAAA entries in the
> global DNS for ULAs - but it seems that it leads to too many complications
> to be recommended. Since I'm sure the IETF isn't ready yet to endorse the
> reality of split DNS deployment, wouldn't it be best to say that ULA-Cs
> SHOULD NOT be included in the global DNS? (And that is a significant
> difference in scope and intent compared with PI.)
>
> Brian
It really is no worse than having any other address which is
partly or fully firewalled off. The big difference between
ULA-C and ULA-L is the the former is guarenteed to be unique
and the later is not. Ambigious addresses in the DNS are bad.
Non reachable (except for nameservers) arn't.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
