> Peter Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 05:42:38PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It's not. Even without IPv6, having search domains means you can get
> >> unexpected results. If that's not acceptable, don't complain, but put
> >> a period behind your FQDNs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > thanks, Iljitsch, for bringing this into dnsop. I think that the problem
> > of determinism in following the search path is very well worth investigatin
> g.
> > To some extent it's related to RFC 1535 and we've at least had this under
> > "A.O.B." in one of the recent meetings, if I remember correctly.
> >
> >
> >> No, it's a DNS issue, so it should go to dnsop. dnsop people: see
> >> discussion between Mark, Keith and me that started under the subject
> >> "renumbering" on the ietf discussion list.
> >>
> >
> > The semantics of search paths in mixed or dual stack environments need to
> > be clear, independent of a particular API, at least as long as the search
> > path isn't set API specific. Seems that we should at least have a look int
> o
> > this, see what implementations do and what operational and maybe security
> > consequences are.
> >
> Is there any consensus for deprecating searchlists entirely? That would
> simplify the issue.
>
> - Kevin
It would but I don't think you will find any consensus.
It would be tough enough to get rid of partially qualified
names.
Note: I tried to get this issue addressed years ago and
couldn't get any traction then.
http://atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg04767.html
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
