Re: I-D ACTION:draft-savola-v6ops-6bone-mess-00.txt

[Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>]

>>> >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)

	and
	- RFC2672 doesn't say that DNAME is a pseudo RR type (which does not
	  appear on wire), so i assume it is a real RR tyep (which appears
	  on the wire).  this is opposite from your statement above.

itojun