> > Scott, what feature of existing ULAs makes them unsuitable for this > > usage today? In the ridiculously unlikely event of a ULA prefix clash, > > this would be detected up-front when trying to set up the reverse > > delegation, and then you'd simply generate a different ULA prefix.
> As far as I know there's no mechanism to delegate reverse DNS for a locally > generated ULA, since there's no "ownership". IMO any move to start > delegating .arpa authority for ULAs would be de facto ULA-C, so if we're > going to do that we should do it right and do the other registration > functions that should go along with the DNS delegation. not to disparage either participant shown above personally, but, this argument is beyond nuttiness. mark andrews has a draft out about local domain name service for RFC 1918, and his fundamental observation is that there is no need for the resolution perimeter of a PTR to differ from the routing perimeter of the IP address described by that PTR. yet here we have a large set of folks who unlike mark andrews are not experts at DNS, telling us that yes we do need to be able to resolve a PTR from places where the addresses won't be routable, and then using this ignorant and false assertion to justify a global registry of unique but unreachable address blocks, each having its own globally reachable nameservers for PTRs. what's wrong with this picture? is there a use case we can all study? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
