some 6bone registry questions for the list

[davidk@ISI.EDU]

Hi,

I recently got a few remarks and wanted to know your opinion.

The current draft for the registry describes that domain names should be
used in the tunnel specification of the 'ipv6-site' objects. This has the
advantage that it is very easy to derive the IPv4 *and* IPv6 address
through DNS.

I have changed the syntax checking recently in such way that it doesn't
accept IPv4 numbers anymore but that it will help a bit by doing a
reverse lookup. However, if nothing is found, a error is generated.

Guy Davies told me that this might have gone a bit too far. Do you agree?
Should I change it to a warning only or leave it as is with the strong
syntax checking?

In another question, it was pointed out to me that RIPng was the better
protocol name instead of RIPv6. I plan to switch and convert to RIPng if
nobody objects. It will hardly have any consequences for most people
since I will alias RIPv6 to RIPng.

David K.
---