Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-02.txt

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:34:04 +0000 (GMT)
    From:        Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.SOL.4.33.0201231028280.25735-100000@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk>

  | On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
  | 
  | >	hello, i guess the document should be updated to either:
  | >	- cover IPv6 addresses as well, as IPv6 scoped addresses share
  | >	  the same problem as IPv4 private addresses
  | 
  | I did intend the general principles stated in the document to be
  | applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6. But as I'm not an expert in IPv6, I
  | didn't put in any specific considerations.

At the minute, that is probably wise.   The IPv6 community has not yet
decided how to handle site local (in particular - these are the closest
IPv6 comes to 1918 addresses) and the DNS.

There's one school of thought that explicitly wants to put those addresses
in the DNS, even though they're known to be unreachable by almost everyone.
Personally I think that would be a disaster, but there is support for this
approach (if the whole thing were universally implemented it would turn out
to be reasonably efficient (even better using A6 rather than AAAA) and
very simple.)

I'd be quite happy if Itojun's link local and site local text made it into
the doc, but perhaps others in the IPv6 community might not be.

IPv4 compatible addresses are a different thing entirely, they're really just
global addresses using a different routing system, which will eventually
(one assumes) vanish.  I'm not sure there's really a need to ban them from
the DNS - but it might be that their time has already passed.

kre