"nearly unique" is not good enough. You want to be able to
register these addresses in the ip6.arpa tree.
Do you? How does this fit with the concept that unreachable
addresses should not be included in the DNS?
As soon as we have any sort of private addressing (VPNs, firewalls
or any type of site-local addressing, I think we're stuck with some
sort of split DNS that includes local addresses in local name lookups,
but not in global ones, right?
Is the reverse look-up tree an exception to this? I suppose it would
have to be, if you want people from outside the site to be able to
identify the source of a leaked address... But, it's not clear how
this would work with mostly-unique addresses.
What does work is having truly unique addresses and delegating
the reverse servers.
Yes. Truly unique addresses are better for including in the reverse
DNS, even if they aren't routed globally. They also have the advantage
that if there is an overlap that is causing problems, it is possible
to find out what organization is actually registered to use that prefix.
But, are these (fairly minor) benefits worth the cost of requiring a
registry, etc?
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
