nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?
From: Todd Vierling <tv () duh org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:01:39 -0500 (EST)
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>
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Pekka Savola (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Edward Lewis (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Paul Vixie (Feb 11)
- RE: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Jeroen Massar (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Mark . Andrews (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Paul Vixie (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Paul Vixie (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Paul Vixie (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Todd Vierling (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? bill (Feb 11)
- RE: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Jeroen Massar (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation? Mark Andrews (Feb 10)