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:
Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:20:58 +0859 ()
In-Reply-To:
<5.0.2.1.2.20010808093637.02ff22f8@localhost> from "David R. Conrad"at "Aug 8, 2001 11:10:50 am"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
drc; > >So, you are saying that the large organiation is currently accepting > >to manually change IP addresses of DNS servers on renumbering, aren't > >you? > > Yes. > > >If so, A6 is perfectly fine for it for easy and quick renumbering. > > I don't think so. A6 is only a small part of the full problem. The beggest part of the full problem is updating DNS glue. > >The only thing to do is to have an RFC for the organization to tell > >renumbering with A6 is as easy as with NAT. > > But it wouldn't be since addresses are embedded in (manually edited) > configuration files, filter lists, etc. It is really painful to do so with 128 bit addresses. With A6, DNS provides not only addresses but also bitmasks that writing cofiguration becomes easy. > Sorta reminds me of the IDN situation. Instead of focusing on the real > problem (getting higher layers to do the right thing), the focus is on > fixing the DNS... The right thing to do for IDN and NAT, is not to use them. Masataka Ohta