> Mark,
>
> At 01:22 PM 12/01/2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > > It costs real money to absorb the load.
> > >
> > > Well understood. But it will be a while before this goes mainstream.
> >
> > The point is that we really will want to legitimise what
> > as112 will have to do. To tell the users of these addresses
> > that they SHOULD / MUST configure their nameservers to cover
> > atleast the ULA addresses they can route to (not only their
> > own addresses). To tell ISP's that they can configure their
> > caching servers to respond to any queries that leak from
> > their clients. To tell those that don't use ULA's that they
> > can configure their servers to answer these queries and that
> > they won't cause problems.
> >
> > To tell users of ULA's that it is safe for them to setup
> > their own versions of C.F.IP6.ARPA and D.F.IP6.ARPA.
> >
> > To make it legitimate for nameserver vendors to pre-configure
> > there servers to block these zones with appropriate knobs
> > to turn them off.
>
> I think what you are proposing is a good idea, but it is out of scope for
> the ULA draft itself. It would be good if you put it into a new internet
> draft that described this and the general issues regarding putting ULAs in
> the global DNS. DNSOPS is a probably a better venue as there are more DNS
> experts there than in IPv6, but the first step is to produce the draft.
>
> Bob
The section deals with how ULA's interact with the DNS.
This sort of detail needs to be there otherwise it will not
be read. One can argue whether auto configuring nameservers
needs to be there but the gist of the rest does.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
