On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote: > >>My concern is that, if it is one, it is inconsistent with the current > >>MINIMUM requriements. > > > Could you elaborate which current minimum requirements you refer to? > > RFC 1034. PERIOD.
Could you be a bit more constructive? I guess you refer to: A given zone will be available from several name servers to insure its availability in spite of host or communication link failure. By administrative fiat, we require every zone to be available on at least two servers, and many zones have more redundancy than that. .. but NOTHING requires these two servers be available using the same IP transport. You could add one as v4-only and one as v6-only and fulfill the criteria. That would be pretty stupid, of course, but I don't think there's text in RFC1034 which applies here.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
