> I think it was recognized a long time ago that the initial deployment > of A6 records should be limited to two (or at most 3) levels. The question > is whether that is enough to avoid the horrors described by Dan Bernstein > over on IPNG. 'clever' people are likely to seriously abuse DNAME and A6. we have already seen unnecessary and confusing attempted use of DNAME over in the enum wg. is there any *significant* advantage to them allowing more than one level of indirection? randy --------------------------------------------------------------------- The IPv6 Users Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Perry E. Metzger
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns itojun
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Bill Manning
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Bill Manning
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Randy Bush
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Perry E. Metzger
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Randy Bush
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Brian E Carpenter
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Jim Bound
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Jim Bound
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Jim Bound
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Randy Bush
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Jim Bound
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Brian E Carpenter
- RE: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Randy Bush
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Keith Moore
- Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns Keith Moore
