To:
"David R. Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>
CC:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:30:20 +0859 ()
In-Reply-To:
<5.0.2.1.2.20010807172339.0301adb0@localhost> from "David R. Conrad"at "Aug 7, 2001 05:31:59 pm"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
drc; > >The NAT sites I've seen are using it for precisely one reason: to > >conserve precious IPv4 address space. > > Large organizations also use NAT so they aren't held hostage by their > service provider. Really. If you don't believe me, ask any large > organization that does not have "portable" address space. So, you are saying that the large organiation is currently accepting to manually change IP addresses of DNS servers on renumbering, aren't you? They should have small (maybe two) number of nameservers for the entire organization visible from the outside in the public Internet and willing to renumber them or have none and ask someone operate ones. If so, A6 is perfectly fine for it for easy and quick renumbering. > The argument can be made that you can renumber with AAAA, but pretending > that renumbering is not an incentive to use NAT is just silly. The only thing to do is to have an RFC for the organization to tell renumbering with A6 is as easy as with NAT. Masataka Ohta