To:
"JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H?(B" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Cc:
Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
kent@songbird.com
Date:
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:03:44 -0800
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<y7vwuikq2np.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>; from jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:56:10PM +0900
Mail-Followup-To:
"JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H?(B" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>,Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>, dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5.1i
Subject:
Re: What problem were we trying to solve again? (was Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.)
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:56:10PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H?(B wrote:[...] > For example, the address to name mapping for traceroute can be > provided by ICMP node information messages (of course, it depends on > whether intermediate routers support and allow the ICMP, and reply a > useful node name. But similar arguments apply to DNS reverse mapping > as well.) IPV4 reverse mapping is currently deployed, and therefore provides a functioning operational/software model for IPV6 node identification. Any scenario involving deployment of a new mechanism necessarily creates a substantial extra burden, in a number of areas. Kent #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.