With all due respect, any suggestion to use the ULA in a domain name
produces either a domain that is unique to one host or a domain that
is every bit as global as sitelocal, depending on whether by stating
"ULA prefix" you mean the local ULA or the well-known global ULA
prefix.
In rfc4193:
Local IPv6 unicast addresses have the following characteristics:
- Globally unique prefix (with high probability of uniqueness).
- Well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
boundaries.
[...]
If you mean the first (the local ULA prefix), then the domain is
unique to one host. My computer could never find my fridge using the
hostname "fridge" unless it knew every ULA on the local network and
created an entry in the dns search path. Very long entries in the dns
search path are a very bad thing (tm).
If you means the second (the assigned prefix under which all ULA fall)
then the domain is common to all hosts in the universe that generate a
ULA address. The only difference is it is
<host>.<somethingveryobscure>.sitelocal.
Curtis
In message <[email protected]>
Ray Hunter writes:
> Isn't it possible to combine the two ideas of sitelocal. with
> pseudo-domains generated from ULA to give a usable solution?
>
> e.g. fridge.<pseudo-ula-domain>.sitelocal.
>
> Don't you then avoid the evilness of identifier overloading (my fridge
> versus your fridge) and potential problems with clashing TLD's?
> e.g. someone registering a bunch of <pseudo-ula-domain>. TLD records as
> their company brand for manual administration.
>
> How else are homenet devices going to know not to bother the root
> servers with fridge.<pseudo-ula-domain>. NS queries given that TLD's are
> now basically a free for all?
>
> Wouldn't it also potentially give a unique anchor point for storing
> DNSSEC zone signing with an implicit sitelocal. trust anchor?
>
> regards,
> RayH
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Synthesise a pseudo-TLD from the ULA prefix.
> >
> > Brian
>
>
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 01/08/2012 05:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > ...
> >> fridge.sitelocal. is a FQDN with site local scope.
> >
> > And therefore intrinsically evil, just like 10.0.0.0/8 is intrinsically
> > evil.
> >
> > IMHO we shouldn't be discussing how to make it work less badly; we should
> > be discussing how to avoid it entirely.
> >
> > Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
