RE: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns

[Jim.Bound@nokia.com]

  | I also think the
  | processing of A6 should not be done on clients but on the servers.

>That argument was made (by you, and others) back when A6 was being
>debated.   If you care to look back over the archives (IPNG, and
>perhaps DNSIND) you will see why things are the way they are.
>I'm sure you will recall that it wasn't just that no-one thought
>of the possibility...

Those debates were before running code.  The running code is not going to 
scale and is not scaling.  Or does that not mean anything anymore?  Granted 
this is an extrapolation to BIND 9 code base as its not widely deployed. But

that is what good engineers do.  Just the points D. Bernstein raised by
definition
implies BIND 9 resolvers will not scale hacking A6 hierarchies.  I am not
comfortable
just saying then let it be if people do stupid things.  The reason is that
the 
engineers at the vendors who ship BIND as software get the calls to fix it.
We 
know it won't work now.  ALso 3 or a few more levels can be enforced in the
BIND
code if we put it there.

I do see your point but I think a compromise is to reduce the hiearchy to
some
value folks can agree to and when that works and we learn more about A6 we
can
later address increased hieararchy.

regards,
/jim