Subject: Re: short circuiting reverse lookups

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:30:39 +0900

>We should get the IPv6 case right.  However if we believe that
>dual stack is the likely IPv6 deployment scenario we are only
>addressing well less than half the immediate problem.

	if we can declare that there should be no site-local/link-local unicast
	address available on the DNS reverse mapping, we could deploy host
	implmentation that never perform reverse lookup for those addresses.
	it will screw up people who plans to use site-locals in two-faced DNS,
	though...

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:12:51 +1100

Date:        Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:30:39 +0900
    From:        [email-masked]
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 	it will screw up people who plans to use site-locals in two-faced DNS,
  | 	though...

That would be no problem at all, anyone who wants to use two faced DNS
deserves whatever evil befalls them.

The real problem with never doing reverse lookups on site or link locals
(assuming that there is a need to do reverse lookups at all, for
anything) is for sites that are disconnected, where site locals, or
even link locals, are all the addresses that exist.

kre