On 31 Mar 2017, at 16:09, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote:
Peter van Dijk writes:
Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing
the
port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon
prove
quite important.
I agree that neither handles it explicitly. Ray's singular use case
doesn't really need it, and our draft can handle ports through the
DNS
address family mechanism if needed, albeit less compactly that could
be otherwise envisioned. If this were something that others think
should somehow be made explicit via some other mechanism, I could see
incorporating that.
How would you do it in the DNS address family?
Sorry, I see it now, the DNS address family has an opaque field
(‘custom token’) behind it. Would prefer standardisation of port
still!
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
