To:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
cc:
Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, users@ipv6.org, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date:
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:55:44 -0500
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:55:37 PST." <E14Jdt3-0005T6-00@rip.psg.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
> '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? I can't tell that there is any significant advantage in even a single level of indirection, as compared to a local macro expansion facility. given that renumbering events are unlikely to be entirely automatic anyway, the necessity to re-sign the local zone when the set of prefixes changes doesn't seem like a big deal. And last time I looked I couldn't find where anyone had worked out the details of verifying a chain of signed A6 and DNAME records anyway, at least not if you care about ensuring that the parties who did sign the records actually had the authority to do so (i.e. they had the address space delegated to them.) But it looks very non-trivial at best. Keith