Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I see Thomas' argument for tolerating occasional use of AAAA entries in the > > global DNS for ULAs - but it seems that it leads to too many complications > > to be recommended. Since I'm sure the IETF isn't ready yet to endorse the > > reality of split DNS deployment, wouldn't it be best to say that ULA-Cs > > SHOULD NOT be included in the global DNS? (And that is a significant > > difference in scope and intent compared with PI.) > > > > Brian
> It really is no worse than having any other address which is > partly or fully firewalled off. The big difference between > ULA-C and ULA-L is the the former is guarenteed to be unique > and the later is not. Ambigious addresses in the DNS are bad. > Non reachable (except for nameservers) arn't. I don't think it's that black/white. Unreachable addresses for delegations are bad because they result in long time outs for end users. That is not good and should be discouraged. So, there is a difference depending on whether one is talking about AAAA or PTR records. That said, I agree that ambiguous addresses are a different and much worse problem. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
