nanog mailing list archives
Re: moving to IPv6
From: Jerry Scharf <scharf () vix com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:34:09 -0800
if global name to 'address' resolution is desired, then the directory mechanism protocols, currently dns, need to be translated at address and/or name domain boundaries. some nats currently do this.
You opened it, so I can't resist. What happens to Secure DNS in this case? The whole idea of "tracable to the root" signing goes out the window in this case.
are there other protocols/data which *must* be translated at boundaries? should kink such as cuseeme be left to die?
(Rotting in steaming piles on the shoulder of the information superhighway?) I think these protocols will need to be fixed or only run in limited areas of the Internet.
randy
jerry
Current thread:
- Re: moving to IPv6, (continued)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vijay Gill (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Nikos Mouat (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Joe Shaw (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Dorian R. Kim (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Brett Frankenberger (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jerry Scharf (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Pedro Marques (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)