dan,
I will not argue against you or for you. Last I will say your correct.
But they are not going to listen to you here. I am out of it. Everyones
using AAAA anyway. If you can change the minds of these here best of luck
to you. But I bet I hear this debate again a year from now with no
resolution. Its too bad but that is the way it is and why I try to reduce
the work I have to do here.
I am not pro bind or pro bernstein or pro microsoft DNS I am pro IPv6
deployment thats all. bind is just what most have deployed. Its just good
enough but can be made better I think.
/jim
On 1 May 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Jim Bound writes:
> > But A6 will be shipped on the street and its a done deal.
>
> No, it is not. IPNG can terminate the A6/DNAME proposals right now.
> Users will continue to rely on AAAA, not on A6 and DNAME.
>
> > we believe it should not be implemented for greater than 3 levels of
> > hierarchy
>
> Even a single level of A6 indirection is dangerous. See my example of
> AOL committing suicide at the top of http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html.
> I can't imagine what you think a 3-level limit would accomplish.
>
> > As one of the people to fund BIND future development
>
> Thank you for disclosing your financial interests. Did you know that
> United States antitrust law prohibits packing standards committees?
>
> ---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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
