Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-00.txt

[Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>]

1. Just to let the list know I am here and noting the comments that are
being made on my draft. I will make some response in a few days when
I've studied all the comments.

2. I've been sent two comments privately. For the list's information,
they are:

(a) A suggestion to add the 169.254/16 addresses to those that should
    not appear in the DNS, because they are already listed by IANA for
    use as "link local" addresses. See also

    http://files.zeroconf.org/draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal.txt

(b) Another correspondent says:

      "I am currently working on an I-D that has a section focused
      on using the "private" IP Addresses in a public DNS file.
      In my document all Private IP addresses are restricted to a
      subdomain called "local". In my I-D, I use the "local"
      subdomain for accessing systems on their local interface by
      their private IP Addresses.  The base of that part of my I-D
      is the organizations, that aren't able to handle both an
      internal and external DNS system."

    I am not at all sure that I like this idea. It seems to encourage
    the appearance of, for example, 10.x.x.x addresses in the public
    DNS. The author asks for a special case to be made:

      "If your document makes it to RFC status and mine does not,
      please include some type of "special circumstances" clause
      for using private addresses. The reason that I ask this is
      because when ISC looks at the RFCs for the next version of
      BIND, it may adversly affect my systems, and systems of
      other administrators."

    I expect others on this list have views about that...

Philip

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.