> Hi,
>
> >OK. Lot of shouting since this was sent but not much new text.
> >
> >How about
> >
> > Locally assigned ULA AAAA records MUST NOT appear in the global DNS,
> > since there is an extremely small probability that the corresponding
> > addresses are not unique. Even though these addresses will be
> > unrouteable in the global Internet, their leakage via DNS is highly
> > undesirable. Such AAAA records MAY appear in local regions of the DNS
> > corresponding to their region of routeability.
> >
> >(And I would put an equivalent SHOULD NOT on centrally assigned ULAs.)
>
> While I am sure everyone in this discussion has read the DNS text in the
> current draft, here it is just in case:
>
> 4.4 DNS Issues
>
> At the present time AAAA and PTR records for locally assigned local
> IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be installed in the global DNS.
> The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this
> document.
>
> For background on this recommendation, the concern about adding AAAA
> and PTR records to the global DNS for locally assigned local IPv6
> addresses stems from the lack of complete assurance that the prefixes
> are unique. There is a small possibility that the same PTR record
> might be registered by two different organizations. Due to this
> concern, adding AAAA records is thought to be unwise because matching
> PTR records can not be registered.
>
> This text (in my view) is more or less equivalent to what is proposed
> above. The text in the draft doesn't use the upper case MUST/SHOULD
> language since this part of the document is operational guidelines and that
> language doesn't seem appropriate. I suppose something with lower case
> must/should would work.
>
> My personal view is that this is about all we can say now in this
> document. I continue to think that what is needed is a separate draft that
> discusses this topic in detail. This document might even relax the
> recommendation if warranted. It would be a good place to describe
> different approaches to the locally and centrally assigned ULAs as well.
>
> Chair hat on:
>
> The -08 draft is currently in the IESG. Almost all of the Discuss votes
> have been cleared. If we can go with the current text it may result in the
> document being approved soon. The more we try to fine tune it there is a
> risk of further delay.
>
> It would be good if we could move forward on this document.
>
> Bob
Which completely ignores the operational problems caused by
leaking reverse lookups. We know these will exist and we
need to take steps to prevent them.
The only complaint I saw against my proposed text was the level
of proscription against adding AAAA LAU LAs to the global DNS.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Mark
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
