Re: [v4v6interim] Single namespace

If that is the case then it would make sense to get this documented as a
common practice. We have to determine between idealized and realizable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:56 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] Single namespace

On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> While I understand that suggestion, and even have a certain amount of 
> sympathy with it, I note that there's a practical reason that many 
> DNS-heads don't like multiple versions of the namespace: they tend to 
> leak into other contexts.

no doubt. When we pretend something doesn't exist, it's pretty easy for
it to get screwed up.

I'll argue that recognizing the issue and designing a solution will work
better than whistling in the dark.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim