% => At least you and I agree FWIW :)
% Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
% why they should be put in the global DNS. Unless
% people are trying to prove that these local addresses
% don't require a two face DNS. It's a lost cause I think ;)
%
% Hesham
of course, it is i
The suggested language seems fine to me (aka just say yes...).
--On Thursday, April 15, 2004 09:36 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Suggested text for 7.0:
and PTR records for Local IPv6 addresses MAY be installed in the
global DNS at the option
Brian,
At 12:36 AM 4/15/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
> Suggested text for 7.0:
>
> and PTR records for Local IPv6 addresses MAY be installed in the
global
> DNS at the option of the site to which they are assigned. It is expected
> that most sites will not make u
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 08:08:49 +0300 (EEST),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Note that the latter paragraph intentionally excludes the discussion
> of other kinds of limited-scope addresses from discussion, i.e., it
> only mentions why adding link-locals is bad.
Yeah, I know.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > > This would appear to be incompatible with the IANA considerations
> > > section that says:
> > >
> > >>If deemed
> > >>appropriate, the authority may also consist of m
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
> Suggested text for 7.0:
>
> and PTR records for Local IPv6 addresses MAY be installed in the global
> DNS at the option of the site to which they are assigned. It is expected
> that most sites will not make use of this option, but some sites may find
> benefits in
u look at the case 1) below, that for certainty is a case which
> would impact third parties.
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:57 PM
> > > To: Tony Hain
> > >
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>> Dan
>> Lanciani
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:16 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Response to AD comments on
>> draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-
>> 03.txt
>>
>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL
On 12-apr-04, at 15:15, Pekka Savola wrote:
Again,
unless there is impact to a 3rd party, putting local use addresses in
the
global DNS is none of the IETF's business.
If you look at the case 1) below, that for certainty is a case which
would impact third parties.
1) putting in local addresses
an Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> > -Original Message-
|> > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:57 PM
|> > To: Tony Hain
|> > Cc: 'Dan Lanciani'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> > Subj
Original Message-
> > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:57 PM
> > To: Tony Hain
> > Cc: 'Dan Lanciani'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Response to AD comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-
> >
as I think one might want to use global addresses instead..
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Dan
> > > Lanciani
> > > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:16 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PR
Thus spake "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > This would appear to be incompatible with the IANA considerations
> > section that says:
> >
> >>If deemed
> >>appropriate, the authority may also consist of multiple
organizations
> >>performi
Thus spake "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2004-04-09, at 07.19, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> > |=> At least you and I agree FWIW :)
> > |Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
> > |why they should be put in the global DNS.
> >
> > One might want to build an overlay network where
alf Of Dan
> > Lanciani
> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:16 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Response to AD comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-
> > 03.txt
> >
> > Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
Of Dan
> Lanciani
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Response to AD comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-
> 03.txt
>
> Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |> |=> At least you and I agree FWIW :)
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |=> At least you and I agree FWIW :)
|> |Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
|> |why they should be put in the global DNS.
|>
|> One might want to build an overlay network where consenting sites know
|> how
|> to reach each other by
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:21:52 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 2004-04-09, at 07.19, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> >
> > |=> At least you and I agree FWIW :)
> > |Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
> > |why th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-09, at 07.19, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> |=> At least you and I agree FWIW :)
> |Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
> |why they should be put in the global DNS.
>
> One might want to build an overlay network where consenting si
"Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > That is why it is stated as "are not expected to be in the
| > global DNS".
| > There will be issues caused by them being advertised yet not
| > reachable.
| > Would you rather see a stronger statement against inclusion in the
| > global DNS?
|
|=>
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
> In addition to this, I'd also like to note that
> draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt recommends limited-scope
> addresses not be in the global DNS:
>
> 2.1 Limited-scope Addresses
>
>The IPv6 addressing
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:00:06 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>but
>> that didn't seem to be the consensus of the WG.
> => At least you and I agree FWIW :)
> Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
> why they should be put in the global DNS. Unless
> p
> That is why it is stated as "are not expected to be in the
> global DNS".
> There will be issues caused by them being advertised yet not
> reachable.
> Would you rather see a stronger statement against inclusion in the
> global DNS?
=> I think this makes sense. Something like "SHOULD N
Hi Hesham,
Soliman Hesham wrote:
Hi Brian,
One question/comment below:
> > (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?
>
> Given the follow-on
Hi Brian,
One question/comment below:
> > (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?
>
> Given the follow-on discussion of this point, how abo
At Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:34:41 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> Given the follow-on discussion of this point, how about the following
> replacement text for section 7.0:
>
> records (both forward and reverse) for Local IPv6 addresses
> are not expected to be installed in the global
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 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
27 matches
Mail list logo
