DNAME issues (was Re: ip6.int deprecation)

Geoff Huston gih at apnic.net
Tue May 9 11:59:14 CEST 2006

At 07:50 PM 9/05/2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>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.

If you want to look at IPv6 as a continuing technology testbed for the 
"real" deployment elsewhere or elsewhen,  then there is much to be said for 
this type of approach of using IPv6 as a test rig for novel approaches to 
provisioning of infrastructure services.

On the other hand, or course, there is a significant body of opinion that 
wants to get over the concept of IPv6 is still an experimentation rig and 
promote the perspective that Ipv6 is stable, functionally mature and ready 
for deployment, and further experimentation and testing in infrastructure 
elements is not precisely the current intended role for IPv6.



More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list