[67555] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bill)
Wed Feb 11 22:48:18 2004
From: bill <bmanning@karoshi.com>
To: tv@duh.org (Todd Vierling)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Cc: paul@vix.com (Paul Vixie), nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0402112059030.12020@server.duh.org> from "Todd Vierling" at Feb 11, 2004 09:01:39 PM
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> : as a practical matter, it is impossible to ensure that all name servers
> : and resolvers understand DNAME. but it is very possible to ensure that
> : a given zone, such as "8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa" in ISC's case, is only
> : served by authority servers who understand DNAME and do CNAME synthesis.
>
> Would it be too much to try to get the RIRs to agree that "ip6.int." get a
> DNAME and all other zones get unlinked in a shorter timeframe? i.e. why go
> through the motions of many different subzones of ip6.int. having DNAMEs
> when just one record will do for the world?
>
> In any other Internet context, I can see this as being too many cooks in the
> kitchen, but the entities serving up ip6.int. zones are of a reasonably
> small number.
>
> -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>
-IF- (its a big one) we can get the IANA to agree, then the
DNAME haq would be implemented post haste.
--bill
