I do not believe it is either necessary or appropriate to have DNS
provide only addresses that are reachable by the party making the query.
The question in my mind is whether it is appropriate to put addresses
that are by design not globally reachable in the DNS.
Nor should DNS be used as a
Michel Py wrote:
Erik Nordmark wrote:
On the enterprise side I can see that folks have been
bitting or are concerned about renumbering costs if they
were to use PA addresses.
But I don't have any data on how many consider having one
PA prefix per ISP good enough since it allows
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hello,
A few quick comments on the draft. Sorry for lack of content.
Substantial:
This document proposes an approach to allocating IPv6 Site-Local
address so they are globally unique and routable only inside of a
site.
== it would be good to go a bit
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:04:13AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, multiple addresses are part of the IPv6 architecture. And SCTP
deals with them, even if TCP doesn't. It may be something new and
different, but there's no way you can declare it a no-go.
And we also have many different
This does not answer the question of why you assume that ISPs will change
their business models under v6.
I said:
|The ISPs business model is about service differentiation.
And I agree that they most likely will continue with service differentiation.
But I think they can change the
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Substantial:
This document proposes an approach to allocating IPv6 Site-Local
address so they are globally unique and routable only inside of a
site.
== it would be good to go a bit more in depth to how this is actually a
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:10:08 +0100 (CET)
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe it is either necessary or appropriate to have DNS
provide only addresses that are reachable by the party making the query.
The question in my mind is whether it is appropriate to put
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Substantial:
This document proposes an approach to allocating IPv6 Site-Local
address so they are globally unique and routable only inside of a
site.
== it would be good to go a bit more in depth to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes that is what the spec says, but reality is always somewhat
different. There is no technical reason that an anycast address could
not be assigned to any group of hosts. The issue that must be dealt with
there are technical reasons why anycast addresses can only be
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This does not answer the question of why you assume that ISPs will change
| their business models under v6.
|
|I said:
| |The ISPs business model is about service differentiation.
|
|And I agree that they most likely will continue with service
Brian,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Substantial:
This document proposes an approach to allocating IPv6 Site-Local
address so they are globally unique and routable only inside of a
site.
== it would be good to go a bit more
Brian,
Erik Nordmark wrote:
On the enterprise side I can see that folks have been
bitting or are concerned about renumbering costs if they
were to use PA addresses.
But I don't have any data on how many consider having one
PA prefix per ISP good enough since it allows some graceful
cutover
But when server.example.com has that is just GUPI then mail
delivery to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will fail when the GUPI is not reachable,
right?
Yes it will. But not because you listed a GUPI in the DNS, but because you
failed to provide and advertise a server that was reachable by
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:09:41 +0100 (CET)
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when server.example.com has that is just GUPI then mail
delivery to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will fail when the GUPI is not
reachable, right?
Yes it will. But not because you listed a GUPI in the DNS,
14 matches
Mail list logo
