On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:21:52 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 2004-04-09, at 07.19, Dan Lanciani wrote: > > > > > |=> 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. > > > > One might want to build an overlay network where consenting > > sites know how > > to reach each other by constructing dynamic tunnels based on > > some (yet to > > be defined) mapping function. Thus the addresses may well be > > reachable in > > some sense. > > But is this reason enough to have them in the global DNS tree. > I don't think so... > Rather than the dynamic mappings Dan suggested, I could imagine a corporate, WAN type IPsec VPN scenario, were the global DNS entry destinations are only accessible across the IPsec tunnels, to devices residing behind the IPsec VPN gateways. Placing unique-local addresses in the global DNS infrastructure would save having to setup split / duplicate DNS in this scenario, minimising costs. Regards, Mark.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
