To:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date:
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:35:19 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<20031118144419.GR22385@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: morishita-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa
On 18-nov-03, at 15:44, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On a similar note, we should include
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-02.txt to include more text to refer
>> to
>> v6 DNS issues and operational guidelines (e.g. the draft above and
>> more)
>> or create a new document. I'll be thinking of new text in the coming
>> days..
> Also good, especially since it has expired - the latest version can be
> found here for info:
> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues
> -02.txt
I don't see this problem:
"it is also obvious that it is important to
avoid fragmenting the name space available to IPv4 only hosts. I.e.
during transition it is not acceptable to break the name space that
we presently have available for IPv4-only hosts."
If I run an IPv6-only service, why would IPv4-only systems need to be
able to resolve my DNS names?
Obviously some public health type warnings wouldn't be bad, but somehow
I suspect that people who might be inclined to run an IPv6-only
nameserver for IPv4-relevant domains won't be deterred much by words of
wisdom from the IETF.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.