[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-savola-v6ops-6bone-mess-00.txt
- To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-savola-v6ops-6bone-mess-00.txt
- From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:55:10 +0900
- Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:56:13 -0700
- Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
>> >i suggest adding a reference to http://www.isc.org/tn/isc-tn-2002-1.txt,
>> >which addresses some of the dns-related issues in migrating away from 6bone.
>> two comments -
>> 1. DNAME is not widely implemented in resolvers in the wild. therefore
>> not many will be able to resolve "blah.int" with this scheme.
>the dname logic executes in the authority servers, by synthesizing cnames.
>so as long as the master and all slaves understand dname, this proposal works.
then
- how do you sign a zone with DNAME? synthesize = you can't sign.
- why DNAME resolution has to be kept in BIND8 resolver?
(i have sent a diff to remove DNAME processing in BIND8 resolver
distributed in BIND9 package, and i got "don't remove DNAME" comment)
itojun