DNAME issues (was Re: ip6.int deprecation)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

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.