Common where? Yes for firewalls and extranets I agree. But that is not the
same paradigm as two face dns for sitelocal addresses as an implementation.
Two different beasts all together. And the world is not good today to with
all the NAT and Tunnels it is horrible we should be careful to not propogate
such behavior whenever possible with IPv6.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday,February 07,2001 2:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: another renumbering question
>
>
> I didn't mean to say it is required. But I think it is so
> common these days that
> it's fair to regard it as normal for large intranets.
>
> Brian
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I disagree that we can assume any site will have two face
> DNS. Thats a bad
> > assumption.
> > /jim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday,February 07,2001 10:19 AM
> > > To: Robert Elz
> > > Cc: Paul Francis; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: another renumbering question
> > >
> > >
> > > Once you *know* that a host has a site local address, the
> > > address selection draft tells you when to use it. I've always
> > > assumed that they would be in the DNS along with global addresses.
> > > Presumably large sites will be running two-faced DNS anyway, so
> > > these addresses will never go outside.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > Robert Elz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:24:23 -0800
> > > > From: "Paul Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Message-ID: <006b01c0909c$528dda60$1300a8c0@dellchan>
> > > >
> > > > | But I can't recall how it is a host decides when
> > > another host can be reached
> > > > | via a site-local address, nor can I find where I
> read that text.
> > > >
> > > > This is still one of life's mysteries I think - several
> ideas have
> > > > been floated, but nothing yet committed to a draft that I'm
> > > aware of.
> > > >
> > > > The include placing the site locals in the DNS, and
> having clients
> > > > do a match on the global addresses to see if the site
> local should
> > > > refer to the same site (one that finds no attraction to
> me at all).
> > > >
> > > > And having the client send from its site local addr (so the
> > > packet cannot
> > > > leave the site) to the remote global addr an ICMP saying
> > > "tell me your
> > > > addresses", and receiving a list that includes the site
> > > locals for the
> > > > destination (or receiving an ICMP error indicating an
> > > attempt to cross
> > > > the site boundary with a site local source addr). (If the
> > > source doesn't
> > > > have, or doesn't want to use, its site local addr, then
> > > there's no point
> > > > doing any of this, may as well just use global addr of the
> > > dest a well).
> > > > This one I like - it adds a small delay in communications
> > > the first time
> > > > a connection is attempted to a new node (only for
> > > connections initiated,
> > > > responses would never do this) but that is bounded by the
> > > RTT to the edge
> > > > of the site, which is usually of the order of a couple of ms.
> > > >
> > > > kre
> > > >
> > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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]
> > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
