> 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. You don't even need to worry about the transition reaching the point where some servers or clients drop support for AAAA -- A6 records can be use like AAAA with one waste byte. And as long as you don't ditch DNAME + binary labels, you can put your reverse data in the same zone. Now there's a job for a perl script. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME David Harmelin
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME David Harmelin
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME D. J. Bernstein
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME Ian Jackson
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME Matt Crawford
- RE: The case against A6 and DNAME Jim . Bound
- RE: The case against A6 and DNAME Christian Huitema
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME Bill Sommerfeld
- The cost of signing records D. J. Bernstein
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME Nathan Lutchansky
- RE: The case against A6 and DNAME Matt Crawford
- RE: The case against A6 and DNAME Jim . Bound
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME D. J. Bernstein
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME D. J. Bernstein
- RE: The case against A6 and DNAME Jim . Bound
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME JIM FLEMING
- RE: The case against A6 and DNAME David R. Conrad
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME D. J. Bernstein
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME David R. Conrad
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME D. J. Bernstein
- Re: The case against A6 and DNAME Robert Elz
