In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "D. J. Bernstein" writes:
>Background: Why do NS and MX records use names, rather than addresses?
>
>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?
Apart from not wanting more polling, the idea is to facilitate rapid
renumbering. AAAA is especially problematic if DNSSEC is used, since
that would require resigning the entire zone -- and that's expensive.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
