Christian Huitema wrote: >> And before you leap into "I'm never going to use the DNS, so whats the >> problem?" please also note that I'm not saying that putting these >> addresses into the DNS is good, bad or indifferent. > > What about "indifferent"? > > Suppose that we pre-populate the ip6.arpa tree with synthetic name > server records, so that the name server for a given ULA prefix > <ula-48>::/48 (ULA-C or not) always resolves to <ula-48>::1 (or any > other suitably chosen anycast host identifier). Then DNS look-up will > always point to the closest instantiation of that anycast address, or to > nothing at all if the prefix is not reachable. Voila, DNS look-up > without any central registration...
I almost proposed that, BUT, that breaks the whole point that some people are using ::1 or ::53 or whatever magic constant for something else already. People tend to use the first subnet on their LAN already. It would indeed 'solve' the problem given here, but only partially as you still don't have the really important bit: Forward resolving. How is one magically going to tell where to find microsoft.com? Both have the same root :( I once proposed a 'well known anycasted DNS server address', so that we can always say 2001:db8::53 and 192.0.2.53 are DNS. The 'local' DNS server is simply the closest one found in the routing tables. ISP's can then simply route this to their recursive nameservers and presto, no configuration of that part needed. Unfortunately, only one such root can exist in a network, if you join two networks you still have to tell both networks where forward + reverse servers exist. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
