Re: [v4v6interim] Single namespace

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

The fact of life is that we already have an untold number
of DNS namespaces. Offering different views of the
namespace inside and outside corporate networks is standard
practice. Now this offends the computer science view of the
DNS as creating a single, formal, unique namespace but it hasn't
been that way for at least ten years.

Although DNS64 is even more offensive to the computer science
view, I can't see any realistic solution to the v4only/v6 only
interworking problem that doesn't *require* different views
of the namespace on the two sides, created dynamically to
match the translation state.

   Brian
   Dept of Computer Science
   Univ of Auckland


On 2008-10-02 08:22, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:34 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2008, at 10:42, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> The way we usually implement this kind of thing is to have multiple
>>> name servers, one of which is accessible from outside and the other
>>> is accessible from inside.
>>
>> The reason I've been having a hard time following this discussion is
>> that you're using the word "domain" where I've always seen the word
>> "horizon" in order to distinguish the concept from the meaning of the
>> word "domain" in Domain Name System.
> 
> The horizon is the edge of the routing domain.
> 
>>> That gives us one name space, but different responses to that
>>> translation request depending on the source of the request. DNS64
>>> does largely the same thing, but commits the gross and indecent act
>>> of saying out loud that it does so.
>>
>> The "gross indecency" here is, apparently, admitting in public that we
>> cannot escape the need to amend the DNS standards to recognize, for
>> the first time, that we need more than one public horizon, i.e. the
>> V4V6COEX public horizon and the IPv6 public horizon.
> 
> perhaps. I find such things a little idiotic. It's one thing to say you
> don't want to do it; there are a lot of things I don't like to do and
> want guidance when I am forced to do them. Pretending it doesn't exist
> and going bats when someone points out the elephant in the room isn't
> very productive.
> 
>> I do not see how we can escape that problem except by deprecating
>> IPv4-only operation.
> 
> You get my vote. Talk with the network operators. Do you happen to know
> any? :-)
> _______________________________________________
> v4v6interim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
> 
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim