Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id EAA03057; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 04:08:25 -0500
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 12 Dec 1995 04:07:21 -0500
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id EAA03028; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 04:07:17 -0500
From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Message-Id: <199512120907.EAA03028@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <02193-0@domen.uninett.no>; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 10:07:04 +0100
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: perry@piermont.com
cc: Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 address representation
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Dec 1995 17:30:11 EST." <199512102230.RAA22565@jekyll.piermont.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 10:07:02 +0100
Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

Perry,
on the surface, the idea of using the reverse-mapped domain seems like
a Nice Thing.

But - this also requires that mailers hardcode ip6.int. (and in-addr.arpa
for consistency?) into their internal name resolution, since we DO want
to be able to send to addresses that are not DNS-listed!

Seems to me that this is balancing on the borderlines of DRUMS - but we
may have to do it.

             Harald A