nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNS for RFC3180 GLOP reverse zone ?
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () americafree tv>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:35:58 -0400
On May 6, 2010, at 11:14 PM, James Hess wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:12 PM, L. Gabriel Somlo <gsomlo () gmail com> wrote: ..I wonder if DNS for GLOP/RFC3180 is still expected to work/be supported,or should I just give up :) > Thanks,I am not sure, but I believe as a best practice, RFC3180 is considered basically defunct at this point, it's obvious that at least the RDNS is neglected. The problem is that it relied on mapping bits from the AS number into the IP address bitspace. Now that AS numbers have been extended to 4 bytes in length, and RIRs are even about to stop differentiating between them when allocating AS numbers, or allowing anyone to request and be sure of getting a new 16-bit ASN.It seems that it will be impossible for the scheme to be followed in IPv4.A more sensible BCP at this point would be to designate the entire 223/8 to IRRs, like was suggested by the BCP for 64512 -- 65535, since most ASNs are not using GLOP addressing.
Look at RFC 5771While it is no longer automatic, entities with 4 byte ASN can get multicast addresses from the
AD-HOC Block III (the old extended GLOP space). Regards Marshall
Mapping ASN bits onto multicast IP ranges is convenient but wasteful too, once you consider >2^16 ASNs.
-- -J
Current thread:
- DNS for RFC3180 GLOP reverse zone ? L. Gabriel Somlo (May 06)
- Re: DNS for RFC3180 GLOP reverse zone ? Antonio Querubin (May 06)
- Re: DNS for RFC3180 GLOP reverse zone ? James Hess (May 06)
- Re: DNS for RFC3180 GLOP reverse zone ? Pekka Savola (May 06)
- Re: DNS for RFC3180 GLOP reverse zone ? Marshall Eubanks (May 07)