I think we agree or almost on most points discussed here. On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, OKABE Nobuo wrote: > > > On which case the reverse lookup is necessary in LCNA usage? > > > We complete neglect that. > > > > If you don't even implement IPSEC, at least reverse lookups could be done > > so you could (possibly) configure access-lists to the box. > > > > I'm not sure how big an issue this is but reverse should be mentioned at > > least. > > Let me go back to your original question. > Do you think that our draft should describe about reverse lookups?
I believe it should. > If so, I think ID should refer RFC1886, then nibble-style, of cause. Agree. > But I have a question. > What domain should be the right stuff, > ip6.int or ip6.arpa, or both? > Please tell us WG consensus. ip6.arpa is the thing of the future (see RFC 3152), but it isn't used that widely yet. Still, I'd say ip6.arpa only, especially if these LCNA's don't intend to ship tomorrow. Pekka -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
