Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>    And for that matter how hard it would be to implement, and what
>    the benefit would be, versus the drawbacks. Most of the time
>    when people do split DNS, it's because they want information
>    behind the firewall to be invisible globally not so much for
>    operational reasons (because they wouldn't work) but because
>    they don't want to reveal the inner workings of the network
>    behind the firewall. So even if this feature Mark's proposing
>    were widely implemented in host resolvers (which it would have
>    to be to be useful), and even if we had the technology to actually
>    populate this sort of information accurately in the DNS, I think
>    most people who operate DNS servers that could in principle
>    advertise non-global addresses this way would choose not to. So
>    yeah, I'd predict not much uptake.

I can see a few benefits of Mark's proposal. One is that it is good to
have a standard representation of information. In particular,
Mark's proposal would make it possible to have a master zone file that has
both public and private DNS entries. Then a split-DNS server could serve
only the public data to the outside world. 

At the same time, I think it would be great if we can put link-local addresses
in DNS. 

There may be more applications, for example in the context of VPNs. 

It may tie in nicely with scope IDs in socket addresses. If a DNS
record specifies that is valid only on a VPN link, then maybe we can already
tie the address to that link. No need to change applications, it can be
hidden in the stub resolver.