On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:41:57PM -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
I'd suggest to not publish any rationale and simply say something like:
4.4 DNS Issues
At the present time and PTR records for locally assigned local
IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be installed in the
Bill, this is my last go on this. Not that I specially want
to leave you the last word, but if you don't get what I'm
saying after all this, it's pointless to continue. Below...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Bill, this is my last go on this. Not that I specially want
to leave you the last word, but if you don't get what I'm
saying after all this, it's pointless to continue. Below...
we agree to disagree. only history will tell if the IESG is making
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.
Right. And, while I personally agree with the
WG chair hat on
Please note that I am the shepherding chair for this document.
I have gone through the mailing list discussions on this document
several times. Everyone should note that this document has been
through WG Last Call, IESG Review, and IETF Last Call. Given the
level of reviews and
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
Publishing AMBIGIOUS addresses in the GLOBAL DNS is WRONG.
If you need to publish them in the DNS you need to use a
split DNS configuration. This is no different to how we handle
RFS 1918 address. They don't get published in the GLOBAL DNS
because they
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 they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected connections.
I strongly
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 they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected
Brian sez:
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,
imo - much wishful thinking
also imo - this whole idea is a
Scott Bradner wrote:
Brian sez:
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,
imo - much wishful thinking
My point is simply
Thus spake Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott Bradner wrote:
Brian sez:
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,
imo -
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:17 AM
To: Daniel Senie
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:31 AM 12/6/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Mark Andrews [EMAIL
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 unique. Even though these addresses will be
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt
Hi,
OK. Lot of shouting since this was sent but not much new text.
How about
Locally assigned ULA records MUST NOT appear
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 unique. Even though these addresses
Scott,
There are other things we are doing (renumbering procedures, multi6, the
NAP draft) to try and deflect this danger, but ULAs don't increase it.
we disagree - I think they are an attractive nuisance (to use a
pseudo-legal term) and we (the IETF) will rue the day that we approve
this idea
I
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 they are not globally
On Dec 7, 2004, at 12:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott Bradner wrote:
Brian sez:
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
At 04:23 PM 12/7/2004, Bob Hinden 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 unique. Even
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
IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be
At 05:45 PM 12/4/2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
If ISC was to publish in the DNS
www.isc.org.10M IN 2001:4f8:0:2::d ; exists
today
www.isc.org.10M IN FC01:4f8:0:2::d
and you happened to have a machine with local addresses
At 05:45 PM 12/4/2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
If ISC was to publish in the DNS
www.isc.org.10M IN 2001:4f8:0:2::d ; exists
today
www.isc.org.10M IN FC01:4f8:0:2::d
and you happened to have a machine with
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
|+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected connections.
I strongly object to making this a MUST NOT, ...
OK. Lot of
At 04:31 AM 12/6/2004, 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 they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected connections.
I strongly object
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| | Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| |
| | | Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | |
| | | |+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS i
| s
| | | |+MUST NOT occur as they
Thus spake Dan Lanciani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| If it in the global DNS is in NOT your DNS. It is everybodies.
What are you talking about? The data in my DNS resides in my servers or
in servers that I contract to hold it. You don't see it unless you query
those servers.
| If you want to put it in
If ISC was to publish in the DNS
www.isc.org.10M IN 2001:4f8:0:2::d ; exists today
www.isc.org.10M IN FC01:4f8:0:2::d
and you happened to have a machine with local addresses
FC01:4f8:0:2::d.
You would be
Thus spake Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If ISC was to publish in the DNS
www.isc.org.10M IN 2001:4f8:0:2::d ; exists today
www.isc.org.10M IN FC01:4f8:0:2::d
and you happened to have a machine with local addresses
FC01:4f8:0:2::d.
You would be unable to
Thus spake Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If ISC was to publish in the DNS
www.isc.org.10M IN 2001:4f8:0:2::d ; exists today
www.isc.org.10M IN FC01:4f8:0:2::d
and you happened to have a machine with local addresses
FC01:4f8:0:2::d.
Hi,
Can I also add we have some discussion on this issue in the (now obsolete)
draft draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03, which can be found at:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt
After Washington IETF, a couple of us (at least myself and
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
|+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected connections.
I strongly object to making this a MUST NOT, especially with the growing
uncertainty
Lanciani
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
|+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
|+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected connections.
I strongly object to making this a MUST NOT, especially with the growing
Thus spake Brian McGehee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have to agree with this MUST NOT.
|+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS
|+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|+to unexpected connections.
Although there is a good chance that someone else
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| |+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
| |+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
| |+to unexpected connections.
|
| I strongly object to making this
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| |+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
| |+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
| |+to unexpected connections.
|
| I strongly object to
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| | Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| |
| | |+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS is
| | |+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
| | |+to
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| | Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| |
| | |+Advertising locally assigned ULA records in the global DNS i
s
| | |+MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
| | |+
Mark,
At 01:22 PM 12/01/2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
It costs real money to absorb the load.
Well understood. But it will be a while before this goes mainstream.
The point is that we really will want to legitimise what
as112 will have to do. To tell the users of these addresses
Mark,
I don't think wait and see is a cop-out, actually. Since these
addresses are by definition useless on the Internet in general,
I think local pragmatic decision taking is the best way to find
out what we *should* recommend. It's not obvious to me that
a typical corporate deployment of ULAs
Mark,
I don't think wait and see is a cop-out, actually. Since these
addresses are by definition useless on the Internet in general,
I think local pragmatic decision taking is the best way to find
out what we *should* recommend. It's not obvious to me that
a typical corporate deployment
It costs real money to absorb the load.
Well understood. But it will be a while before this goes mainstream.
Brian
Mark Andrews wrote:
Mark,
I don't think wait and see is a cop-out, actually. Since these
addresses are by definition useless on the Internet in general,
I think local pragmatic
Mark,
At 03:16 PM 11/29/2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
Section 4.4 DNS Issues
This sections appears to be a real cop out.
It is perfectly natural for clients to want to make queries and
have these addresses returned from the DNS.
There is a wide range of views on what is
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt
Pages : 17
Section 4.4 DNS Issues
This sections appears to be a real cop out.
It is perfectly natural for clients to want to make queries and
have these addresses returned from the DNS.
The problem is that there is no co-ordinating authority for
59 matches
Mail list logo
