Re: Response to AD comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] $B?@L@C#:H(B wrote:
> In addition to this, I'd also like to note that
> draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt recommends limited-scope
> addresses not be in the global DNS:
> 
> 2.1 Limited-scope Addresses
> 
>    The IPv6 addressing architecture [5] includes two kinds of local-use
>    addresses: link-local (fe80::/10) and site-local (fec0::/10).  The
>    site-local addresses are being deprecated [7], and are only discussed
>    in Appendix A.
> 
>    Link-local addresses should never be published in DNS, because they
>    have only local (to the connected link) significance [8].
> 
> (Hmm, it's not clear if this talks about the forward tree only, the
> reverse tree only, or both...perhaps "both" is the intention).

(note: I'm acting as an editor of that particular document, so 
suggestions are welcome.)

Ack.  Yes, it applies to both.

Note that the latter paragraph intentionally excludes the discussion 
of other kinds of limited-scope addresses from discussion, i.e., it 
only mentions why adding link-locals is bad.

The discussion of site-locals is deferred to an appendix.  The 
relevant text from there is:

   To actually use site-local addresses within a site, this implies the
   deployment of a "split-faced" or a fragmented DNS name space, for the
   zones internal to the site, and the outsiders' view to it.  The
   procedures to achieve this are not elaborated here.  The implication
   is that site-local addresses must not be published in the public DNS.

   To faciliate reverse DNS (if desired) with site-local addresses, the
   stub resolvers must look for DNS information from the local DNS
   servers, not e.g. starting from the root servers, so that the
   site-local information may be provided locally.  Note that the
   experience private addresses in IPv4 has shown that the root servers
   get loaded for requests for private address lookups in any.

(FWIW, the document just passed dnsop WGLC, and is being revised, so 
if others have issues with this, feel free to shoot them.)

Would it make sense to also include the discussion of these new unique
local addresses?  I've hesitated to do so, because they've been a
moving target, and I'd like to avoid adding anything there which could
become invalid if the document is changed prior to IESG approval.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------