Background: Why do NS and MX records use names, rather than addresses?
RFC 1035 responds: If you copy a machine's address into an NS record,
then you have to watch for changes in the address, and echo them.
Indirection ``avoids the opportunity for inconsistency.''
I agree: indirection is good. But it didn't have to be handled by the
DNS _client_. It could have been handled by the DNS _server_. The server
could have periodically checked for changes in the address. This would
have reduced latency, and improved reliability; see my next message.
Now my question: Why has IPNG proposed A6, rather than AAAA?
The answer seems to be the same: If you copy an ISP's address into part
of an AAAA record, then you have to watch for changes in the address,
and echo them. Indirection avoids the opportunity for inconsistency.
I agree: indirection is good. But it doesn't have to be handled by the
DNS _client_. It can be handled by the DNS _server_. The server can
periodically check for changes in the address. This will reduce latency,
and improve reliability.
Is there some other claimed benefit of A6?
---Dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
