On a similar note, we should include
draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-02.txt to include more text to refer to
v6 DNS issues and operational guidelines (e.g. the draft above and more)
or create a new document. I'll be thinking of new text in the coming
days..
Also good, especially since it has expired - the latest version can be
found here for info:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues -02.txt
I don't see this problem:
"it is also obvious that it is important to avoid fragmenting the name space available to IPv4 only hosts. I.e. during transition it is not acceptable to break the name space that we presently have available for IPv4-only hosts."
If I run an IPv6-only service, why would IPv4-only systems need to be able to resolve my DNS names?
Obviously some public health type warnings wouldn't be bad, but somehow I suspect that people who might be inclined to run an IPv6-only nameserver for IPv4-relevant domains won't be deterred much by words of wisdom from the IETF.
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
