Subject: RE: draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-02.txt

From: "Larson, Matt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:50:34 -0500

> 	a very rough draft for IPv6 counterpart is attached.  
>      please let me
> 	know if you want to integrate two it one, or want to handle them
> 	separately.

We're in the process of adding IPv6 support to the com/net/org registry.  We
are currently planning on disallowing name servers (i.e., glue AAAA records)
containing IPv4-mapped or IPv4-compatible addresses.  This plan would be in
conflict with Itojun's proposed section 2.5, which allows IPv4-compatible
addresses (though I noticed the parenthetical caveat).

I would grateful if some IPv6 experts weighed in on this issue.

Thanks,

Matt
--
Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
VeriSign Global Registry Services

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:48:36 +0100 (CET)

> addresses (though I noticed the parenthetical caveat).

There is move underway to obsolete IPv4-compatible addresses and the
associated automatic tunneling specified in RFC 2893, but this is not
a done deal yet.

But unless there is strong arguments for needing IPv4-compatible addresses
I'd say keeping the DNS operationally "clean" would argue for not allowing
them.

  Erik