DNAME issues (was Re: ip6.int deprecation)

Nick Hilliard nick-lists at netability.ie
Tue May 9 15:27:28 CEST 2006

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:21 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 9-mei-2006, at 13:01, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >> Wouldn't having a DNAME record for ip6.int be a very good way to
> >> uncover DNAME brokeness without real trouble?
> >> Since when does DNAME need testing?
> > ???
> Testing is what you do to find problems. If you know the problems are  
> there, it's no longer testing.

So, you want to put in a DNAME for ip6.int in order to uncover DNAME
brokenness, and are trying to pretend that this isn't a way of finding
problems with DNAME implementations (i.e. testing)?

I don't mean to be a smart-ass here, but apart from being inconsistent,
this is also profoundly incompatible with what you said in another

1. Do the right thing. ALWAYS.
2. Don't expect anyone else to.

Look, ip6.int is deprecated;  there is no point in artificially
breathing more life to the domain by using DNAME when really, it just
needs to die quietly.  And breathing life into it by implementing a DNS
RR which is know to have problems on some system, is the Wrong Thing.
Quite categorically the Wrong Thing.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list