> > This is tunnel vision. The only reason that no one expects > > them in the DNS is that we havn't added support for them > > in the DNS. > > > > well, that and the minor consideration that current DNS architecture > > assumes that names are global and that queries return consistent results > > everywhere. > > So. I've shown how to add them and return consistent results > everywhere. The only reason we don't do it now is that we > havn't added support to do it.
adding support to applications to deal with address scopes is an extremely nontrivial task. but feel free to start on it. when you're done, let the rest of us know. forgive us if those of us who don't believe that all of this complexity is justified don't help out. > Did you bother to actually read what I have posted in the > last couple of days? Your responses to this and previous > mail make me think that you are not actually paying attention > to what is being sent. Rather you are locked in a crusade > to kill SL and are ignoring anything which will actually > address the problems you raise. no, I'm in a crusade to make IPv6 suitable for applications. and I'm ignoring handwaving about the ease of making sweeping changes to accomodate needless complexity. If we can justify SLs on non-isolated networks at all then I'm happy to consider ways of putting them in DNS - anything is better than putting them in ordinary IN AAAA records. But putting SLs in the DNS doesn't solve the problems they cause. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
