J.D. Falk wrote:
wouldn't it make more sense to do some research into IPv6
DNSBLs before defining how they'll work?
The only question that has to be answered is which IPv6 can
be the sacrifice maiden for an always listed test address.
Now after somebody got me to see that ::FFFF:127.0.0.2 is
not simple enough there is still the original proposal ::2,
and the new proposal in the meeting to use an IPv6 example
Similar there was a s/test/invalid/ proposal for RHSBLs.
IMO it is perfect when a "proposed standard" proposes an
answer to a simple question. There is no huge installed
base with different ideas (wrt IPv6), or with better ideas
It's not really "controversial", it would be only nice to
hear from some IPv6 experts that ::2 is okay as sacrifice.
I.e. that nobody would ever want to list or not list that
IP for "real". Outside of a toy DNSBL with say "odd IPs",
where ::2 or 127.0.0.2 don't qualify as "odd enough".
Asrg mailing list