On 23-mei-2007, at 10:23, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Another advantage of ULA-c is that it's possible to get the reverse DNS delegated
Why 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,
Split DNS is a very dirty hack, we shouldn't promote that. See the AS 112 project for how well stuff that's supposed to be internal stays internal.
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.
Simple solution: automatically delegate the DNS for ULAs to two addresses inside the ULA block in question and everything that leaks out is redirected back inside. This can also work with hash-generated ULAs, though, if someone can build a DNS server that and generate the required records on the fly. And it could apply to 6to4, RFC 1918...