[6bone] ip6.arpa ...

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Bill Manning wrote:
> % > I agree with your proposal.  The thing that RIPE thought up always felt
> % > needlessly complex to me.
> % 
> % Uhh, the proposal at least to me looks unnecessarily complex.  There is no
> % need to tie the process to having IPv6 enabled nameservers, or (to a
> % lesser degree) TSIG capabilities.  Those items can be worked out, though,
> % after the initial setup.
> % 
> % Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year.
> 
> 	It won't take a year. And while it may have been required
> 	crutch seven years ago, there is -zero- reason why one should
> 	expect IPv6 data -not- be visable over IPv6 transport.   Do you
> 	want to tie IPv6 applications to reachability of an IPv4 service?

Let me put this other way around: there is -zero- reason to tie the IPv6
data and IPv6 transport together.  People want the data, by any means
necessary.  Having IPv6 transport is bonus but -definitely- _only_ a
bonus.

I sympathize, but this is all irrelevant.  People wanted this a year ago.  
It doesn't really matter how the servers are reachable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings