I agree with Bob about the current draft; I still believe
it will be much better to discuss the DNS issues in depth
in a separate (dnsops) document. My piece of text was
intended in that context.
Brian
Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
OK. Lot of shouting since this was sent but not much new text.
How
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
also imo - this whole idea is a clear and present danger to the Internet
(assuming that IPv6 gets general deployment)
I disagree. The risk of these non-aggregatable prefixes appearing
in the default-free BGP4 table in exchange for lots of money is the same
as the risk of
Bill Manning wrote:
On Dec 7, 2004, at 7:44, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
On Dec 6, 2004, at 10:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global
DNS is
|+MUST NOT occur as
Bill, you could do that if the prefixes are *routed* but that is
not going to be the case if the ULA spec is followed, except for
private routing arrangements. Since the spec says they MUST NOT
be globally routed, it seems entirely rational to apply the same
rule to your zone files. But as I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill, you could do that if the prefixes are *routed* but that is
not going to be the case if the ULA spec is followed, except for
private routing arrangements. Since the spec says they MUST NOT
be globally routed, it seems entirely rational to apply the same
rule to your
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill, you could do that if the prefixes are *routed* but that is
not going to be the case if the ULA spec is followed, except for
private routing arrangements. Since the spec says they MUST NOT
be
On Dec 7, 2004, at 18:46, Alain Durand wrote:
On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:23 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
While I am sure everyone in this discussion has read the DNS text in
the current draft, here it is just in case:
4.4 DNS Issues
At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned local
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:27:50AM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
I agree that it is a problem, but not one specific to ULAs.
Indeed, it's the dont-publish-unreachables's draft space... but that one
never reached consensus or thus publication.
Tim
On Dec 7, 2004, at 17:25, Mark Andrews wrote:
Hi,
OK. Lot of shouting since this was sent but not much new text.
How about
Locally assigned ULA records MUST NOT appear in the global
DNS,
since there is an extremely small probability that the
corresponding
addresses are not
--===1586805975==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--325288981
;
protocol=application/pkcs7-signature
--Apple-Mail-2--325288981
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Mark,
Thats why I said the DNS section was a cop out. The DNS
information hadn't been collected, distilled and put on
paper. I attempted to do that.
* Don't publish ambigious addresses global.
* It is unwise (but not wrong) to publish unreachable
Brian Haberman wrote:
I don't see this as being specific to ULAs. As the above referenced
draft points out, this can happen with a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
We have RFC 3484 which rationalizes the choice between IPv4 and IPv6 and
as long as those are all global addresses the intent is that
Hi Mark,
Thats why I said the DNS section was a cop out. The DNS
information hadn't been collected, distilled and put on
paper. I attempted to do that.
* Don't publish ambigious addresses global.
* It is unwise (but not wrong) to publish unreachable
On Dec 8, 2004, at 6:27 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
This is unfortunately not the only concern. Actually, i would even
say this is
a somehow minor issue, as the risk of collision is small.
The real concern is similar to what is explain in the v6ops
IPv6onbydefault draft.
Say that a well know host
14 matches
Mail list logo
