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:
1 Aug 2001 12:44:45 -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: > it only "destroys connectivity" when accompanied with one > perverse method of ignoring "glue". This ``perverse method'' has been used by all versions of BIND since 1997, and of course by every version of my cache. The need for it is explained in detail in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/notes.html. > as best I can tell, AOL have never deployed A6 records this way Of course they haven't. We have a wonderful opportunity to abort the A6 and DNAME proposals before anyone starts relying on them. > for NS records, A6 0 should be used... How is that going to be enforced? How is the DNS administrator supposed to know which machines might later be used as name servers? Are caches going to abort NS lookups that involve A6 indirection? What about all the other ways that A6 can lead to loops? ---Dan