Subject: Re: Meeting in SF?

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:42:43 -0800

>>> I guess you want to meet in San Francisco. For that we need an agenda.
>>> What do _you_ want to see on the agenda?
>> ipv6 data and dual-stack server coexistence
> Perhaps you can elaborate this time.  Thanks..

dnsop needs to do major work to defind the operational mechanisms and
practices for v4/v6 coexistence.  the charter was to be changed to
reflect this many moons ago.  this needs to be done now.  and then the
meeting should focus on this.

randy

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:17:10 -0800

For the sake of discussion, here is what I sent to Liman on Wednesday:

Liman,

I would like to have more discussions about IPv6 DNS
focussed on reverse path DNS. I think it is important
to understand what people want to do about this.
	
I will update my draft and write a new one presenting
the RFC1101-based idea that was discussed in the mailing
list before Atlanta.

	- Alain.

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:41:48 +1000

Alain, I was asked by the RIR engineering coordination group to look into
writing a draft on how the RIR would support 6to4 and delegation under
2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. Due to other work, I haven't yet put pen to paper.

I think your comments about scalability are true, as is the observation
that cooperation from upstream ISPs will be required.

This implicitly demands that the RIR have a mechanism in place to support ISPs
who need to register reverse DNS for these instances.

Putting the scaling issue to one side, the RIR believe that a current
procedure being used for transfer of early registration IPv4 records will
scale well to cover shared management of IPv6 spaces, and IPv4 spaces ongoing.

This mechanism essentially permits the ISPs and address holders to use
existing mechanisms for lodgement of reverse-DNS records via the RIR they
normally work with, and a shared zone management procedure for us to integrate
these discrete records into the zonefile which we then co-assert.

Late last year Randy Bush also asked if we could investigate a process to
expedite support of 6to4 delegation. Now that we are close to having the
shared zone management process bedded in, Its realistic to proceed.

So if I can get a brief draft written up in time, could we discuss this in SF?

cheers

-George