[ga] Fw: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Manning" <bmanning@zed.isi.edu>
To: "Bruce Campbell" <bruce.campbell@ripe.net>
Cc: "JINMEI Tatuya?(B" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>; <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; <dnsop@cafax.se>; <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?


> 
> I don't know whom the appropriate people are, but as the
> administrator of the existing ipv6 delegations other than
> the RIR ones, I would have hoped to have been included in
> the process. This is the first I've heard of such a meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:03:32PM +0100, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
> > 
> > > > agreed.  but the pain is minimal.  note that, initially, the content of
> > > > ip6.arpa is directly that of ip6.int.  in fact, one could have the same
> > > > zone file pointed to by both names.  the big pain in the transition is
> > > > that of the registries, whois, etc.  and they've been working on this
> > > > for some months.
> > >
> > > As for the registry side transition, I have another question.  I saw
> > > delegations for 2001:0200::/24 to APNIC.  What is the current status
> > > about 3ffe::/16?  Is there a plan to delegate ip6.arpa. sub domains
> > > for that block?
> > 
> > This is not known, and no delegation exists in ip6.arpa for the 6bone
> > (e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa).  The focus so far in ip6.arpa delegation process has
> > been on the RIR delegations.  I have forwarded the question to the
> > appropriate people who will be meeting during IETF-52, and an answer
> > should be available then.  ( I'm actually not attending this IETF )
> > 
> > One *possible* and easy solution would be to DNAME the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to
> > e.f.f.3.ip6.int ( I'm ignoring technical issues of having to first
> > delegate f.f.3.ip6.arpa to a DNAME-capable set of nameservers first ).
> > 
> > This has the good side of preserving current functionality when the
> > deployed resolver bas looks at ip6.arpa instead of ip6.int.  It has the
> > down side of effectively limiting 6bone to using 'ip6.int' as you cannot
> > then DNAME back into the ip6.arpa tree.  Somehow I don't think that such a
> > restriction is what the 6bone community wants.
> > 
> > No matter what technical tricks are down further up in the tree by the
> > RIRs/ICANN etc, the change in the root ip6 tree *will* require *all*
> > currently deployed delegations to make *some* sort of change.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > -- 
> >                              Bruce Campbell                            RIPE
> >                                                                         NCC
> >                                                                  Operations
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html