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:
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
Date:
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:40:30 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To:
<E14Jdt3-0005T6-00@rip.psg.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
DNAME for ISP.COM DNAME for HOME.ISP.COM DNAME for my.unit.HOME.ISP.COM If ISP.COM renumbers all that has to be done is change the prefix of the highorder bits of my Ipv6 address and only those SIG records theoretically is the view (its much more complex), but this assumption I think is bogus because then one assumes that a new ISP2.COM will use all loworder bits to the right of the highorder bits prefix. I am not clear that is a valid assumption. /jim On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Randy Bush wrote: > > 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 majordomo@ipv6.org >