Soliman Hesham wrote:
Hi Brian,
One question/comment below:
> > (1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is > it expected
> > that whatever registry assigns these values will also > populate the
> > reverse DNS tree? Or not?
> > Given the follow-on discussion of this point, how about the following
> replacement text for section 7.0:
> > AAAA records (both forward and reverse) for Local IPv6 > addresses
> are not expected to be installed in the global DNS > because they are
> intended to be used for local communication inside of > a site. They
> may be installed in the global DNS since they are > unique and will
> not create confusion. They may not be reachable, but that is a
> property common to all types of global IPv6 unicast addresses.
=> I wonder whether it is a good idea to put these addresses
in the global DNS at all. My understanding of having addresses
in the global DNS is that the AAAA records essentially announce
that such addresses are globally reachable (with the exception
of routing failure). However, in the case of local addresses
this is a bit of false advertising. So shouldn't
we recommend that such addresses are not to be advertised in the global
DNS? Otherwise, why are they called "local addresses"?
That is why it is stated as "are not expected to be in the global DNS". There will be issues caused by them being advertised yet not reachable. Would you rather see a stronger statement against inclusion in the global DNS?
My personal opinion is that they should never be in the global DNS, but that didn't seem to be the consensus of the WG.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
