>>>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:00:06 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> but
>> that didn't seem to be the consensus of the WG.
> => At least you and I agree FWIW :)
> Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
> why they should be put in the global DNS. Unless
> people are trying to prove that these local addresses
> don't require a two face DNS. It's a lost cause I think ;)
As Rob pointed out, we should first clarify whether we are talking
about the forward tree (using AAAA) or the reverse tree (using PTR RR
with nibble + ip6.arpa labels). The reachability issue Hesham said in
his first response is basically only related to the forward tree.
In addition to this, I'd also like to note that
draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt recommends limited-scope
addresses not be in the global DNS:
2.1 Limited-scope Addresses
The IPv6 addressing architecture [5] includes two kinds of local-use
addresses: link-local (fe80::/10) and site-local (fec0::/10). The
site-local addresses are being deprecated [7], and are only discussed
in Appendix A.
Link-local addresses should never be published in DNS, because they
have only local (to the connected link) significance [8].
(Hmm, it's not clear if this talks about the forward tree only, the
reverse tree only, or both...perhaps "both" is the intention).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
