On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:00:09AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> D. J. Bernstein writes ("The case against A6 and DNAME"):
> > I recommend that the A6 and DNAME proposals be terminated. I've set up a
> > web page on this topic:
> >
> > http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html
>
> As I've stated before, I strongly agree. I asked here what the
> purpose of A6 and DNAME are, and the end result has been that we're
> told that they're a fancy macro scheme to save zone administrators
> having to write trivial perl scripts.
FWIW, I agree too. The DNS system is already struggling with too many
poorly-configured zones and too much gluelessness to handle increasing
indirection by two or three fold.
The argument that A6 avoids signature problems with DNSSEC does not
provide a suitable incentive to adopt A6, as a renumbering event is likely
to require significant administrative work anyway, albeit less than IPv4
renumbering.
However, if A6 and DNAME become the standard when IPv6 takes off
commercially, either it will work or it won't. If it causes problems, as
Dan predicts, people will simply revert to AAAA records in their zones.
Unlike NS/MX indirection, there is an alternative to A6/DNAME. -Nathan
--
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------------+
| Nathan Lutchansky | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Lithium Technologies |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| I dread success. To have succeeded is to have finished one's |
| business on earth... I like a state of continual becoming, |
| with a goal in front and not behind. - George Bernard Shaw |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
