RE: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen () unfix org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Paul Vixie wrote:

<SNIP>
> the type is defined and at least one authority server 
> implementation will synthesize protocol-compliant CNAME RRs
> in the presence of DNAMEs, and so
> the approach documented at www.isc.org/pubs/tn/ will 
> universally work OK.

In that case why don't the RIR's setup their parts of the
ip6.int tree to DNAME to the relevant ip6.arpa part until
say 6/6/2005 ?

And the 6bone does it in reverse, setup a DNAME from
ip6.arpa to ip6.int, taking care of the deployment issues
as the pTLA's will have to either do a DNAME etc...
People using 6bone space will need to renumber out onto
RIR space per 6/6/6 anyways and thus will also have the
chance to 'renumber/rename' into ip6.arpa at the same time.

The only problem here is that when ip6.int goes away,
that is per my proposed data of 6/6/2005, 'suddenly' all
the software, which effectively has been broken already
for the last two years will 'break', that is not resolve
as ip6.int will return NXDOMAIN after that date.

Also see my note on v6ops.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen

iQA/AwUBQCqkaimqKFIzPnwjEQLdKACfU53VVR8R0IGweS+t3sJkVkCbWEMAnjdg
G+XG/wTmFcRcnUJLtg4bH+PQ
=M4eC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----