To:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
CC:
George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:58:55 +0859 ()
In-Reply-To:
<a05200f1bba9ec3d80ee0@[10.0.1.2]> from Brad Knowles at "Mar 20,2003 02:04:27 am"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.
Brad; > >> > Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6. > >> > >> Why? What's the problem with providing reverse DNS for IPv6? > > > > There is none. > > > > However, IPv6 people have been trying to attribute their problems > > to something else. > > Okay, if there is no problem with providing reverse DNS for IPv6, > and the problems lie elsewhere, then why do we have to break the DNS > in order to try and fix something totally unrelated? Because their goal is to make stateless autoconfiguration or zeroconf work on the public Internet. It does work on isolated LANs. Beyond that, it can not. Pursuing the impossible goal, they find a problem, try to solve it only to find new problems. They are behaving like alchemists not knowing the laws of thermodynamics. One of a psuedo solution is a link local solution. > > Radical, but easy, surgery should be applied to IPv6. > > Fine. Apply it somewhere else. Yup. Surgery on IPv6 with no real install base is not a problem at all. Removing IPsec, autoconf, ND, jumbogram, PMTUD etc. IPv6 can be almost as good as (considerign larger MTU requirement, a little better than, maybe) IPv4. Masataka Ohta #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.