[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

"Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com> wrote:

| > That is why it is stated as "are not expected to be in the 
| > global DNS".
| > There will be issues caused by them being advertised yet not 
| > reachable.
| > Would you rather see a stronger statement against inclusion in the
| > global DNS?
|=> I think this makes sense. Something like "SHOULD NOT".

I would prefer not to see such language.

| > My personal opinion is that they should never be in the 
| > global DNS, 
|=> Agreed.
|   but
| > that didn't seem to be the consensus of the WG.
|=> At least you and I agree FWIW :) 
|Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see 
|why they should be put in the global DNS.

One might want to build an overlay network where consenting sites know how
to reach each other by constructing dynamic tunnels based on some (yet to
be defined) mapping function.  Thus the addresses may well be reachable in
some sense.

				Dan Lanciani

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