> On 18-nov-03, at 15:44, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> >> 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?
Because the IPv4 systems can then decide to use a proxy to
connect to you.
The caching nameserver doing the lookup may be IPv4 only
but its clients may be IPv6 capable.
> 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]>.
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
