Re: Multihoming Issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Elz" <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
> 
>   | Lastly, I am NOT advocating any change. I merely responded
>   | to an implication that there was no justification for
>   | handling DNS for IPV6 differently than for IPv4.
> 
> There should have been, we should be doing A6 for IPv6, that would
> have made lots of sense.
> 

IPv6 and A6 go together....they were made for each other...
...you might want to check with the ICANN Board or the .AU people for more info...

AAAA is for 128-bit DNS users, and does not imply IPv6...
...as an example....2002:* AAAA records cause IPv4 packets to be produced...

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.yi.org
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.org
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]