To:
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@wasabisystems.com>
CC:
Christian Huitema <huitema@exchange.microsoft.com>, Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>, Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, users@ipv6.org, dnsop@cafax.se, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
"Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net>
Date:
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:12:27 -0500
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
At some point here we need to bite the bullet and put IPv6 DNS in the ".". Why not an equal but separate set of root name servers for V6 under IANA control? The named.root file can be distributed in three flavors. IPv4 only, 6 and 4, 6 only? This is a political issue and perhaps off the mark here. Should this be discussed with the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee or is the root servers status a political nightmare? Perry E. Metzger wrote: > "Christian Huitema" <huitema@exchange.microsoft.com> writes: > >> Well, IPv6 users who want to access the IPv4 only DNS server will need >> some form of solution. There is indeed no particular problem in >> deploying a relay-resolver -- we are doing that all the time. > > > Ultimately, relay resolvers won't work. Our goal is to transition from > v4 to v6. That means we have to at some point deploy native v6 > servers. > > It is true that relay resolvers are a useful transition mechanism -- > we use them right now, in fact. I'm merely suggesting we should also > be moving towards the long term solution as well. > > Perry > > -- > Perry E. Metzger perry@wasabisystems.com > -- > Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/