Thus spake Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In her review of draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt, Margaret
raises an excellent point:
(1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is it expected
that whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the
Thus spake Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In her review of draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt, Margaret
raises an excellent point:
(1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is it expected
that whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the
Thus spake Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At a minimum, being present in the global DNS should be at the option
of the allocatee. Until a viable solution is found for non-registered
prefixes, this might be given as an advantage of using a registered
prefix.
Well non-registered addresses
Alain Durand wrote:
I too would like to see the reverse tree DNS being delegated. However,
as there is no
structure, the entire /8 to /48 address space would have to be within
one single zone...
There is structure within the domain name segment between /8 and /48
-- it's a sequence of ten DNS
Thus spake Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 16, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Zefram wrote:
Alain Durand wrote:
I too would like to see the reverse tree DNS being delegated
However, as there is no structure, the entire /8 to /48 address
space would have to be within one single zone...
There
At Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:47:15 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
At Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:07:23 -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
I too would like to see the reverse tree DNS being
delegated. However, as there is no structure, the entire /8 to /48
address space would have to be within one single zone...
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
(1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is it expected that
whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the reverse
DNS tree? Or not?
I think it is better to leave this question for a separate document
Christian,
Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We generally shied away from the second solution, and generally fromusing the host identification query to provide reverse mappings.
Is "host identification query" == "Node Information Queries" here?
Also, what about other non-DNS naming
On Mar 15, 2004, at 12:57 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
(1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is it expected
that
whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the
Hi All,
I've completed my AD evaluation of
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. My comments (attached
below) include a few substantive issues that I would like to discuss
with the WG before sending this draft to IETF last call. Thoughts?
I have also included a few non-blocking editorial
-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. My comments (attached
below) include a few substantive issues that I would like to discuss
with the WG before sending this draft to IETF last call. Thoughts?
I have also included a few non-blocking editorial comments that
should be addresses in the next
In her review of draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt, Margaret
raises an excellent point:
(1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is it expected
that
whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the
reverse
DNS tree? Or not?
The registration process
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Christian Huitema wrote:
We generally shied away from the second solution, and generally from
using the host identification query to provide reverse mappings. Using
LLMNR does make sense when LLMNR is also used as the primary name
resolution service within the
13 matches
Mail list logo
