To:
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
Cc:
itojun@iijlab.net, Christian Huitema <huitema@exchange.microsoft.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>, users@ipv6.org, dnsop@cafax.se, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date:
19 Jan 2001 10:45:54 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Jim Bound's message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:49:59 -0500 (EST)"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
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