A6 is already in DNS implementations. Its just a matter of using it. No
one can tell the market not to use it. Or use it. This is not an IETF
issue. Sorry strike my comment.
thanks
/jim
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jim Bound writes ("Re: AAAA/A6 thing"):
> > After much good discussion with Davkd Conrad and Paul Vixie, and
> > Christian/Matts view of this I believe we must implement what we have
> > regarding A6 specs from the implementation perspective.
>
> `After much good discussion with various people, I believe we must
> implement what we have regarding AAAA specs from the implementation
> perspective'.
>
> Just because something is Proposed Standard doesn't mean it should be
> implemented and/or advanced to Draft Standard.
>
> AAAA is Proposed Standard too, has more operational experience, is
> simpler, and can do everything that A6 can do just as well if not
> better.
>
> > I will leave it to others to tell us as we develop this if the
> > specs are to be altered.
>
> The A6 spec hasn't been finalised yet. It hasn't even been approved
> as a general way forward ! At the moment there are two proposals on
> the table. You can't say `I will leave it to others to [alter the
> spec]', because there is no specification that says you should do A6
> rather than AAAA.
>
> > Assist with renumbering. Reduce routing tables. And make IPv6 more
> > deployable. I will leave it to others to find consensus on this or
> > against this. It needs to be implemented and used.
>
> I agree that we should assist with renumbering, reduce routing tables,
> and make IPv6 more deployable. But A6 does not help with this. In
> fact, requiring a complex protocol like A6 where AAAA is adequate will
> *hinder* IPv6 deployment.
>
> Just because A6 was introduced to help with renumbering DOES NOT mean
> that it is a good thing for that purpose. Nor does it mean that A6
> opponents are somehow taking sides in some kind of ipngwg politics
> about renumbering. I couldn't care less about that politics, and if
> ipngwg say we need easy renumbering, fine. [1]
>
> But ipngwg should not define DNS protocols, dnsext should so so.
> In this case we have an overcomplex protocol which allegedly exists to
> meet some renumbering requirement, but which is in fact unnecessary.
>
> [1] Actually, as a layman when it comes to IPv6, renumbering, etc., I
> approve of making renumbering easy. But I'm no expert in that field,
> and I'll leave that to those who are. Likewise, DNS protocol and
> architecture should be done by the DNS experts.
>
> Ian.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
