> Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |+ Advertising locally assigned ULA AAAA records in the global DNS is
> |+ MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
> |+ to unexpected connections.
>
> I strongly object to making this a "MUST NOT," especially with the growing
> uncertainty that there will ever be a _permanent_ centrally assigned flavor
> of ULA available without recurring fees.
Publishing AMBIGIOUS addresses in the GLOBAL DNS is WRONG.
If you need to publish them in the DNS you need to use a
split DNS configuration. This is no different to how we handle
RFS 1918 address. They don't get published in the GLOBAL DNS
because they are AMBIGIOUS.
> An important feature of even locally assigned ULAs is that they are globally
> unique "enough" for many/most purposes that have been discussed. After month
> s
> of analysis to that end, their lack of absolute uniqueness is insufficient to
> justify adding new prohibition on a particular range of uses at this late dat
> e.
They are unique enough to link serveral hundred / thousand sites
*with minimal renumbering required*.
They are not unique enough to link millions of sites where the
is no way of knowing that renumbering is required.
You just cant filter them out of global respones especially once
DNSSEC is in use.
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
