RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

On split-DNS, I have been studying address configuration in
a different context lately (NETLMM wg) and am leaning toward
a model in which nodes within an enterprise would use global
addresses only for communications with nodes in other
enterprises and would use ULAs for communications with nodes
in the same enterprise. So, that would automatically imply
split-DNS. Would that be a problem?

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com  

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 2:30 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt

...
>>
>>One of the problems with NAT, at least from my perspective, is that
>>they require a split-DNS employment to get local name resolution.
>>Are we expecting that NAP will have that same property?
> 
> 
> Split-DNS would make the non-local case more efficient, but it is not
a hard
> requirement like it is with IPv4/nat. Given that enterprises have
nodes that
> they don't want the world to know about they are likely to be running
some
> form of split-DNS anyway, so I don't see this as a big deal either
way.
> 

Personal opinion: in enterprise network deployments, split DNS is as
likely to go away as firewalls. If an enterprise has internal servers
that it wishes to hide from the outside world, split DNS is inevitable.
As Tony says, NAP will work without it (i.e. if a ULA appears in global
DNS, it will be unrouteable) but I bet it will be as widespread in IPv6
as it is for IPv4.

    Brian