To:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Date:
31 Jul 2001 23:15:27 -0000
Automatic-Legal-Notices:
Copyright 2001, D. J. Bernstein. My transmission of this message to you does not constitute a copyright waiver or any other limitation of my rights, even if you have told me otherwise.
Content-Disposition:
inline
Subject:
Re: Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS agenda
Robert Elz writes: > And this one points out that with A6 it will be possible for sites to > create ludicrous setups that won't work. In the aol.com example, the sysadmin sets up dns-01.ns.aol.com A6 ... prefix.aol.net, and similarly dns-02.ns.aol.com A6 ... prefix.aol.net. What's ``ludicrous'' about that? It's exactly what the A6 specifications encourage him to do. But it destroys connectivity to AOL. All the efficiency issues are minor. The reliability issues are crucial. The A6 proponents keep claiming that a limited form of A6 is safe, but they never answer when I ask them to identify the exact limitation that has this magical effect. How is the DNS administrator supposed to tell the difference between ``ludicrous'' A6 records and normal A6 records? > Without A6 sites can create ludicrous setups that won't work, so there > is nothing really new here. My web page explains three ways that A6 and DNAME lead to problems. ``These problems are not new,'' it says. But it then explains why the problems are under control now, and why they will spiral out of control with A6 and DNAME. My web page also analyzes the alleged benefits of A6 and DNAME. ---Dan