> My two cents about two-faced DNS: In the v4 setups I have done, a > one-faced DNS is enough if the DNS server is inside the NAT box, because > the router that does NAT (at least the ones I have been using, Cisco) > will decapsulate the DNS reply and replace the IP address with the > public one.
and apps that communicate across the boundary and expect consistent results from DNS will break. > In a rather common Microsoft / Cisco / IPv4 / RFC1918 setup, since it violates RFC 1918, please don't call it an RFC 1918 setup. > All this to say that, as not-globally-routable, a DNS system that works > both for the private and the public addresses is something that we > already have for IPv4. "works" is a funny way to describe something that breaks apps and violates standards. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
