Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 1. I am uncomfortable about the dependency on reverse DNS. It will effectively
> mean that only well-run servers can benefit from mh, because client systems
> with temporary addresses (especially RFC 3041 addresses) are realistically
> unlikely to have reverse DNS in place. And that probably eliminates mh for
> peer-to-peer applications too, which is a shame.

(I haven't had time to look at the NOID draft in more detail, so let's
hope I'm not missing some critical context..)

RFC 3041 describes that those addresses can be added to the reverse
tree as well (e.g., such as a hexadecimal string of the address), just
without any real meaning for identifying the node.  This is also
mentioned in draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-08.txt section 2.2.

However, for not to lose privacy this would probably mean at least two
things:

 1) the node must not have non-temporary addresses, at least in the
(same) forward DNS name (as the public address)

 2) the temporary reverses would have to be added automatically etc. 
-- draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-08.txt analyzes the feasibility of 
this to some degree.

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