For once, Tony and I are in agreement. This has nothing to do with operations; it has everything to do with the programming model that the v6 Internet supports.
But I'll go even farther. You can improve DNS reliability a bit through saner operations, but you still can't make DNS good enough to replace addresses as endpoint identifiers. DNS names are already used (some would say "overloaded") for too many different things for us to start insisting that they be usable as stable endpoint identifiers. Furthermore, the very structure of DNS (the size and structure of the names, way the names are federated, the way lookups are federated) also makes it unsuitable for this purpose. Keith > Forming a WG to fantasize about renumbering will not suddenly remove the > edge network manager's requirement for stable address space. The only way > this comes close to being an Ops problem is due to the lack of reliability & > scale in DNS. As long as end users feel that name resolution is > insufficiently reliable to meet their business goals, they will continue to > embed literal addresses in applications & databases that are outside the > network manager's control. If you want to form an Ops WG, create one to > provide a reliable replacement for DNS. > > Architectural management of the address space belongs in this WG, and there > is a requirement for space which is not currently allocated. If you don't > want to participate in that discussion, fine. Just stop getting in the way > of those that are trying to solve real day-to-day problems. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
