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

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt



I agree with Bob about the current draft; I still believe
it will be much better to discuss the DNS issues in depth
in a separate (dnsops) document. My piece of text was
intended in that context.

   Brian

Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,

OK. Lot of shouting since this was sent but not much new text.

How about

    Locally assigned ULA AAAA records MUST NOT appear in the global DNS,
    since there is an extremely small probability that the corresponding
    addresses are not unique. Even though these addresses will be
    unrouteable in the global Internet, their leakage via DNS is highly
    undesirable. Such AAAA records MAY appear in local regions of the DNS
    corresponding to their region of routeability.

(And I would put an equivalent SHOULD NOT on centrally assigned ULAs.)


While I am sure everyone in this discussion has read the DNS text in the current draft, here it is just in case:

   4.4 DNS Issues

   At the present time AAAA and PTR records for locally assigned local
   IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be installed in the global DNS.
   The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this
   document.

   For background on this recommendation, the concern about adding AAAA
   and PTR records to the global DNS for locally assigned local IPv6
   addresses stems from the lack of complete assurance that the prefixes
   are unique.  There is a small possibility that the same PTR record
   might be registered by two different organizations.  Due to this
   concern, adding AAAA records is thought to be unwise because matching
   PTR records can not be registered.

This text (in my view) is more or less equivalent to what is proposed above. The text in the draft doesn't use the upper case MUST/SHOULD language since this part of the document is operational guidelines and that language doesn't seem appropriate. I suppose something with lower case must/should would work.

My personal view is that this is about all we can say now in this document. I continue to think that what is needed is a separate draft that discusses this topic in detail. This document might even relax the recommendation if warranted. It would be a good place to describe different approaches to the locally and centrally assigned ULAs as well.

Chair hat on:

The -08 draft is currently in the IESG. Almost all of the Discuss votes have been cleared. If we can go with the current text it may result in the document being approved soon. The more we try to fine tune it there is a risk of further delay.

It would be good if we could move forward on this document.

Bob




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


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