On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:09, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-aug-2005, at 11:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
However, what may well be missing in the mix
is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and
live with its limitations and quirks every day. We need to understand
the indirect consequences of our choices: not "can it be coded and
will
it interoperate?" but "will it drive service providers and users
crazy?"
Lack of a way to configure DNS resolvers automatically in IPv6
continues to drive me crazy.
I'm not sure I get it... DHCP distributes DNS resolvers, right? I'm
not sure whether the DHCPv4 can distribute DNS IPv6 resolver addresses
or is that restricted to DHCPv6. Would be nice if both did, just like
both dig/v4 and dig/v6 return both v4 and v6 addresses. I think PPP
over IPv6 doesn't do it.
no you don't get it. ask yourself, why is in-addr.arpa special?
or, in the more modren wolrd... where should the enum space
be anchored, e164.arpa, e164.int, e164.bti.gov.uk,
or... we.are.all.bozos.on.this.bus.
this stuff is -HARDCODED- in the resolver libraries shipped with
each end system. the arbitrary change (after six years of deployed
code) from ip6.int to ip6.arpa and -expecting- a mass change out of
deployed code at zero cost to the folks "forcing" the change (guess who
passed that change off on the unsuspecting?) is enough to drive some
endusers crazy... as well as service providers.
--bill
Alex
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf