| If it in the global DNS is in NOT "your DNS". It is everybodies.
What are you talking about? The data in my DNS resides in my servers or in servers that I contract to hold it. You don't see it unless you query those servers.
| If you want to put it in your DNS then use split DNS. Stop | polluting the commons.
This is not a commons issue. Stop trying to assert jurisdiction over my property.
This has practical ramifications too; it's not possible to prevent people from putting ULAs in the global DNS since each controls their own zones. Anything we put in the i-d will be advisory in practice, so a SHOULD NOT is more appropriate than a MUST NOT even if we hypothetically agreed that it's a bad idea.
I'll note that RFC 1918 says ambiguous addresses "should not" be seen outside their realm of validity. There is no reason to put a stronger restriction on ULAs, which have a significantly lower chance of actually being ambiguous in practice.
|> |The two types of ULA have
|> | different usage patterns. Pick the correct one for the job.
|>
|> When the proposal to create ULAs was "split" in order to accommodate a longer
|> process for the centrally assigned flavor (because of the supposed need for
|> comments from the existing address registries) the locally assigned flavor
|> had the necessary attributes to support a wide variety of usage patterns.
|> You propose to restrict the usage of the locally assigned flavor in such a
|> way that many interesting applications will demand the centrally assigned
|> flavor. I propose that if we really want to do that then we should first
|> insure that the centrally assigned flavor comes into existence on reasonable
|> terms.
I see that you again declined to respond to my proposal that we first insure
that the centrally assigned ULAs come into existence on reasonable terms.
Locally-assigned ULAs should be significantly easier to get in place than centrally-assigned ULAs, and IMHO it is prudent for us to make sure the former will have no deficiencies compared to the latter other than the possibility of collisions.
|> This is a false choice. It is impossible to choose the set of tradeoffs
|> because we have no idea what the attributes of centrally assigned ULAs (if
|> they ever exist at all) will be. Basically, we copped out on mandating the
|> critical attributes of centrally assigned ULAs (permanent assignment, low
|> one-time fee) yet now you want to mandate restrictions on locally assigned
|> ULAs that will force a requirement for the centrally assigned flavor.
|
| You believe permanent assignment, low one-time fee was manditory.
In as much as those attributes were core to the original proposal, yes. But
that is irrelevant to the impossibility of examining tradeoffs when we have
no idea what the attributes of centrally assigned ULAs will be. It is rash
to use the assumption that there will be useful choices in the future to
restrict choices today.
Agreed. For now, we must treat locally-assigned ULAs as if they're all we're going to get.
|> | No. It is a attempt to prevent harm from incorrect use. |> |> Harm to whom? | | Harm to users of the DNS.
Again, nobody forces you to use the DNS of a publisher of locally assigned ULAs.
Publishing an unreachable or possibly-ambiguous address in DNS hardly constitutes harm.
No, I'm asking the WG to wait until centrally assigned addresses exist before
effectively crippling locally assigned ULAs. But for the record I do not
accept your premise that any small chance of ambiguity is euqally objectionable
to an almost guaranteed ambiguity.
Ditto. If the odds of collision are considered significant enough that we need to start treating ULAs as ambiguous, we need to revisit how many random bits there are or how they're generated. If we end up treating ULAs as if they're ambiguous, then we've made little or no progress versus site-locals.
|> Your proposal to prohibit locally assigned ULAs from the global DNS is an
|> administrative restriction--one which considerably devalues the addresses
|> in question.
|
| They were already devalued. It was inherent consequence of the
| assignment technique. You must be the only one who thought that
| publishing of locally assigned ULA in the global DNS was going to
| occur.
Actually, I never expected any kind of useful ULAs to exist at all. I expected pretty much the kind of two-pronged attack we are seeing. First turn the centrally assigned ULAs into rentals like the rest of the global space and then restrict the locally assigned ULAs to the point where they are unusable.
IIRC, I'm the one who originally suggested ULAs be allowed in the global DNS, and after a brief discussion it appeared to have consensus. I don't recall any of the current debate coming up back at that time.
|I know from the start as should have anyone who has | ever dealt with site locals / link local / RFC 1918 addresses that | there were never going to be published in the global DNS. They | were by ther very nature abmigious. | | The fact that I said MUST NOT should not have come as suprise to | anyone here.
Well, it comes as no surprise to me because of my cynical assessment of the
entire site local "replacement" plan. I would think it might come as a
surprise to folks who believed that they might really get some useful stable
address space out of this proposal.
MUST NOT certainly comes as a surprise to me. There was a very specific reason I proposed that ULAs be allowed in the global DNS even if I didn't want them to be _common_, and the current "not recommended" is sufficient. Maybe we should upgrade that to SHOULD NOT, but not to MUST NOT.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
