RE: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@exchange.microsoft.com>]

Jim,

I agree that people should not go overboard. Most of the benefits of A6
are obtained by having one level of indirection at the "site" level --
this is the point at which A6 allows you to easily switch providers, or
to swicth which providers you want to advertize. There may be some
additional benefit with renumbering at the "access ISP" layer, but it is
real hard to envisage more than 3 layers of hierarchy.

As for client vs. server resolution, there are arguments both ways.
Experience will tell.

-- Christian Huitema

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bound [mailto:seamus@bit-net.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:35 AM
> To: Perry E. Metzger
> Cc: itojun@iijlab.net; Christian Huitema; Randy Bush; Bill Manning;
> users@ipv6.org; dnsop@cafax.se; ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
> 
> 
> A6 is PS not DS.  If it will not work as is we have every 
> right to oppose
> it.  I also agree with you about renumbering personally but I 
> doubt even
> if 10 of us joined forces and tried to alter the consciousness of the
> collective IETF avalanche of renumbering belief systems which 
> are valid
> but may not be true, we would probably not win that battle.  But if we
> reduce the levels of hierarchy of the A6 DNAMES to max 3 it 
> may work.  But
> if anyone does 10 it will not perform for sometime.  I also think the
> processing of A6 should not be done on clients but on the servers.  I
> can't see my IPv6 PDA or my international gaming device 
> having to cache
> 10 levels and retransmit to get my DNS records.  It just will 
> not work.
> 
> /jim
> 
> On 19 Jan 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> writes:
> > > I agree with you we should be fine deploying AAA records. 
>  I also agree
> > > we need to be skeptical about A6 and if they continue to 
> exist we need to 
> > > for sure do the type of experiments Randy suggested.
> > 
> > I must admit to being very skeptical of A6 -- my experience is that
> > renumbering is not helped by such trivia. Ultimately, the issues in
> > renumbering are NOT protocol issues, they are issues of how 
> you manage
> > your administrative databases, and they can't be helped 
> much by tweaks
> > we make to protocols. Somehow, though, I've been unable to explain
> > that particularly well in spite of discussion in lots of working
> > groups, hallway meetings, and other places with many people for the
> > last four years. (Maybe I need to write an informational RFC, but I
> > rarely have enough time these days...)
> > 
> > About A6, though: I feel like it is too late to oppose it. I didn't
> > speak up at the time it was going forward and as a result I sort of
> > feel as though it isn't clear I have a right to now, but I will say
> > this: I have deployment experience with quad-A at this time 
> and it has
> > been working well for me, and I've never felt a burning 
> need for A6's
> > new capabilities.
> > 
> > Perry
> > 
> 
>