> % > How do applications get addresses? In my experience, a lot of
> % > them get them out of the DNS. But, if we put SLs into the
> % > DNS, we have to have split DNS...
> %
> % We need to do that anyway, because there is no valid reason to leak
> % filtered addresses outside of their scope of routability. Ambiguity is
> % the ruse that is use to make this an issue, but the real issue is that
> % resolving a name to an address that is not routable from that point is a
> % broken concept. Even if a site uses global scope addresses for its
> % internal use nodes & applications, a name resolution that includes both
> % filtered and unfiltered addresses will cause applications that falsely
> % assume a single address scope to fail.
> %
> % Tony
>
> This is something else that seems to have crept out of the
> woodwork. Split DNS. Doe folks really think that this
> "feature" is going to be required in addition to mandating
> a functional DNS?
>
> If so, what does this say to/about the IAB statement on the
> requirement for a single DNS context?
There are alternatives to split DNS. I would hope that the
WG would take up those alternatives if it keeps site-local.
They would be useful even with the alternatives to site-local
by putting reachability information into the DNS. However
now in not the time to debate this. Lets get site-local
decided first.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
