> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > | On 20-feb-05, at 14:34, Gert Doering wrote: > | I have a very hard time believing that both are true. If nobody uses it > | anymore, then keeping existing ip6.int stuff around is 0 work, so that's > | certainly the easiest option. If people actually use it, then yes, it is > | a burden, but apparently it serves a purpose. In this case too, it would > | be better to keep ip6.int. > > I disagree with that. I have started ipv6 with ip6.arpa until i noticed > that some sites on the outside world couldn't resolve properly (read, > were taking a long time to resolve, it successful) which is why i *had > to* use ip6.int as well for our (read, both home and work, since i work > in a place which likes ipv6) zone. I am one of these who actually like > ip6.arpa much more than ip6.int, it is my own belief that it makes > actually more sense. So if tomorrow, someone tells me ip6.int can be > safely removed from my DNS, i will be more than happy. > > Steph
-->Traceroute-ing to www.isc.org and I see that verio still uses .int for their stuff. It's one of those YMMV things until all of the old 6bone stuff is gone/converted. Scotty _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
