Caitlin, > Caitlin Bestler wrote: > The relationship is that DNS is acting as an > index service for IPv6 addresses. In doing so > it treats them as simple hierarchical addresses, > i.e. like fat IPv4 addresses. > The question as to whether that is the correct > handling of IPv6 addresses is a valid one. We have drafts dating six years back explaining how parts of the IID could be used for multihoming purposes. Their shortcomings have been extensively documented. It appears to me that you are trying to invent a wheel that lots of people here have been unsuccessful in making it turn. > This thread started with exactly such a question > being raised, but the rationale on how DNS *could* > be optimized for IPV6 was not spelled out. If you can't relate to a specific protocol, there is little point spelling out how DNS could be optimized in the abstract. And, if think you have a multihoming protocol that uses DNS, it might be a good idea to look at the temporary Requirements for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures: (does not apply to host-based multihoming, though). Is there a link you can refer us to? > [draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03] > 3.1.7 Impact on DNS > Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with > the observed dynamics of the current DNS system, or the > solutions MUST have demonstrate that the modified name > resolution system required to support them are readily > deployable. > Caitlin Bestler wrote: > If, at some future date, we discover that name > servers are cluttered with redundant information > about multi-homed IPv6 hosts we could consider > optimizing based upon the structure of the IPv6 > address. If, at some future date, a multihoming protocol that uses DNS makes it to a permanent blip on the radar screen, we will then discuss the way that hypothetical protocol addresses 3.1.7. Michel.