Re: FWD: Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard

[Dean Anderson <[e-mail]>]

How does anything in DNS affect routability?

DNS is just a protocol for associating names with addresses, or more
generally, names with "information". It doesn't have to be the only
protocol that does that.

I am further amused that Paul would call anyone (else) anticompetitive,
and was rofl at the (his in particular) charge of "secret meetings" and
"unratified decisions".

Perhaps Paul should be chastised.

		--Dean

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Thomas Narten wrote:

> FYI
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> From: Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:24:13 -0800
> Subject: Re: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed Standard
>
> Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt
>
> i object.  i consider this document, and the process which has led to it,
> to be anticompetitive in the extreme.  it will also relegate IPv6 to mobile
> data applications and will cement NAT as the main way for enterprises of all
> sizes to connect to "the internet."  the process which led up to it involved
> secret meetings and the decisions were never ratified by any working group.
>
> consider that IPv6 allows far larger enterprise networks to use globally
> _unique_ address space than IPv4.  now consider that no such enterprise will
> have globally _routable_ address space except for a few large ISP's.  this
> disconnect between eligibility for globally _unique_ vs globally _routable_
> address space must inevitably lead to higher customer stiction by these few
> large ISP's.  the "renumbering penality" for an enterprise with its own
> globally unique (but not globally routable) /64 is much higher than for an
> enterprise with its own globally unique /27 and its own internal RFC1918
> cloud.
>
> this document leads to a scenario where multihoming can only be practical
> for a small number of "externally visible" hosts, but never for the whole
> enterprise.  the artificially high "renumbering penalty" of a pure-AAAA
> solution will either drive enterprises to continue using NAT and RFC1918,
> or will drive them to remain customers of the ISP who owns their address
> space regardless of market pressures to move elsewhere.
>
> crawford's A6/DNAME proposal has some warts but it has none of THESE warts.
>
> i am researching the appropriate federal agency to lodge a complaint about
> anticompetitive activity, since the IETF's membership (including some of
> the authors of this draft) are employees or agents of the large ISP's who
> will benefit from a market stranglehold if this standard is approved.
>
> meanwhile, i urge that this document be shredded and its authors chastised.
>
> re:
>
> > To: IETF-Announce: ;
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > From: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > SUBJECT: Last Call: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Proposed
> >          Standard
> > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:26:24 -0500
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions Working Group
> > to consider Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS
> > <draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> > [e-mail] or [e-mail] mailing lists by April 2, 2002.
> >
> > Files can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt
>
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>