Subject: RE: Default site-local behavior for routers

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:16:49 -0800

My two cents about two-faced DNS: In the v4 setups I have done, a
one-faced DNS is enough if the DNS server is inside the NAT box, because
the router that does NAT (at least the ones I have been using, Cisco)
will decapsulate the DNS reply and replace the IP address with the
public one. In a rather common Microsoft / Cisco / IPv4 / RFC1918 setup,
the DNS servers often being domain controllers in the Active Directory
and having RFC1918 addresses can indeed serve as SOAs and provide DNS
services to the outside without any magic.

All this to say that, as not-globally-routable, a DNS system that works
both for the private and the public addresses is something that we
already have for IPv4. If we want IPv6 to be adopted, we need to provide
the same thing or better, which is valid for multihoming, DNS, and a
bunch of other things.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:50:24 -0500

> public one. 

and apps that communicate across the boundary and expect consistent 
results from DNS will break.

> In a rather common Microsoft / Cisco / IPv4 / RFC1918 setup,

since it violates RFC 1918, please don't call it an RFC 1918 setup.

> already have for IPv4. 

"works" is a funny way to describe something that breaks apps
and violates standards.

Keith