> 2. There's a common error in the evaluation of DNSSEC signing costs. I'd
> like to draw attention to a new section that I've added to my web page
> to analyze this error: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html#signingcosts
Your reasoning is markedly incorrect if applied to A6. If we take
site renumbering to be the dominant factor controlling
signature-validity times, then the signatures on the A6 records
covering interface identifiers and subnets can be valid for a long
time, and only one or a small number of A6 rrsets covering the global
prefixes needs to be re-signed frequently.
> 3. I don't understand why this is an ngtrans issue rather than an ipngwg
> issue. The question is not how to move smoothly to A6/DNAME; the
> question is whether we want A6/DNAME at all.
On this we agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
