[ limiting my comments to the discussion surrounding section 4.1 ] IFF ULA-C space is to exist and be registered/delegated, delegate the reverse blocks for that space as well. we so often beat the "addressing isn't routing" drum weekly. well, DNS isn't routing. DNS+ULA-C is not an end-run around PIv6. DNS is an integral part of addressing and if we're going to move forward with ULA-C as delegated addressing then let us move forward with addressing in its entirety.
if organizations use a ULA-C block in their network, they shouldn't have to special case their DNS infrastructure such that every recursive server in their network has to slave from / forward to some special location to get accurate answers like they do now for RFC1918 and ULA-L. if different organizations end up routing ULA-C blocks between autonomous networks they will already have the benefit of accurate PTR answers without lifting a finger. resolution of a PTR record doesn't inch ULA-C addresses any further towards being PI space, just towards adding value. -- bill -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
