Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

[Jima <nanog () jima tk>]

On 2011-06-10 21:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > I just wish someone had said the same when it was decided that .ip6.int in reverse DNS zone files was ugly and needed to be 
> > changed to .ip6.arpa. Or when someone decided that it's a good idea to set the DF bit on ALL packets when doing PMTUD.
>
> Frankly, I agree that ip6.arpa makes more sense than ip6.int. What I don't understand is why we needed a different 
> in-addr SLD to begin with.
> Why couldn't it be in-addr.arpa? It's not like any valid IPv6 PTR record would conflict with any valid IPv4 PTR record. I 
> don't mind ip6.arpa,
> but, whatever.

 The PTRs would never conflict, but the v4 NS records would pre-empt 
delegation of certain v6 prefixes.  Case in point: if authority for 
2.0.0.0/24 were delegated (which it is), any requests for authoritative 
information for 2001::/16 would have to go through their servers.  Compare:

0.0.2.in-addr.arpa.
1.0.0.2.in-addr.arpa.

 Oops.  And yes, I tested this little theory -- it actually applies to 
large chunks of 2000::/4.

     Jima