DNAME issues (was Re: ip6.int deprecation)

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Tue May 9 11:50:45 CEST 2006

On 8-mei-2006, at 22:57, Geoff Huston wrote:

>> IMHO decent support for DNAME would be great in general, but in this
>> particular case I would vote for ripping ip6.int completely  
>> instead of
>> replacing it with the appropriate DNAME. Products still using it  
>> have to
>> be fixed.

> This view is consistent with the majority of advice I received when  
> preparing the ip6.int deprecation draft a while back. While some  
> folk were in support of using a DNAME in ip6.int there was a larger  
> body of opinion that suggested that DNAME was not sufficient  
> operationally robust, and that "ripping ip6.int completely" was  
> appropriate in this case.

Wouldn't having a DNAME record for ip6.int be a very good way to  
uncover DNAME brokeness without real trouble? After all, people who  
still do ip6.int aren't going to get what they're looking for in the  
alternative anyway.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list