On 2007-05-22 19:51, james woodyatt wrote:
On May 22, 2007, at 00:43, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:...so they're not prepared to take a one-in-2^40 risk...How do they breathe?Another advantage of ULA-c is that it's possible to get the reverse DNS delegatedWhy on Earth would anyone want to delegate the public reverse DNS for addresses that aren't supposed to be reachable outside their private DNS horizon?
Bingo. In the real world, most candidates for using ULAs have been
running split DNS for years, and the ULA boundary will coincide
with the DNS boundary. Any context in which a ULA will be used
"off site" (e.g. over a VPN) will also need the "on site" DNS.
This is current practice with IPv4, made messy by the ambiguity
of RFC 1918. All ULAs do is clean up that mess.
Brian