Subject: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?

From: JOIN Project Team <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:35:53 +0100

Hello, 

recently I was very surprised, when I found that there is an existing 
ip6.arpa. domain, where the reverse IPv6 nibble format is delegated to 
the registries. 

I found no mail or announcement anywhere that from now on ip6.arpa should be 
used for the reverse nibble format. Is that a fact, or is ip6.arpa just a 
global testing scenario that is confusing me?

I know that ip6.arpa should be used instead of ip6.int for political reasons, 
but I always expected to stay the nibble format in ip6.int and the bit-string 
labels to appear in ip6.arpa someday. 

Well, ok, now that the bit-string labels are to be changed to experimental, 
that might be not possible anymore. But I'm not sure if it such a good idea 
to just change the zones. 

Right now there is a well established and well working tree under ip6.int.
If there will grow a second tree under ip6.arpa now, things might become 
very confusing. 
As a resolver, I don't know if I have to lookup the name for my IPv6 address 
starting with .arpa or starting .int. If I lookup in the wrong tree, I might 
get no answer, while the correct one is in the other tree. Yes, I could 
lookup in both trees, but if the answers differ, which one is the correct one?

Is there a solution for this? What is the current policy? Maybe I am confused
because I missed something?

So long,
     Christian

-- 
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN  Christian Schild
                 A DFN project  Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster
Project Team email:             Zentrum fuer Informationsverarbeitung
          [email-masked]  Roentgenstrasse 9-13
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de D-48149 Muenster / Germany
email: [email-masked],phone: +49 251 83 31638, fax: +49 251 83 31653

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:21:03 +0900

I've cc'ed this reply to namedroppers, which might be a better place
to discuss this issue.

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:35:53 +0100, 
>>>>> JOIN Project Team <[email-masked]> said:

> because I missed something?

I'd also like to know the current policy on this.  The current status
is really confusing and can be a serious barrier to deploy IPv6.

Honestly, if we are allowed to live with the current spec
(i.e. ip6.int. with the nibble format), I'll be really happy.
However, the transition to ip6.arpa is inevitable, we should be ready
for this as soon as possible, both in operation and in implementation.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:05:34 -0800

> I've cc'ed this reply to namedroppers, which might be a better place

try dnsop, as this is not a protocol issue.

have a look at rfc 3152.  also look at mailing list archives on the subject
of educating folk that the bit boundary and label type issues have nothing
to do with the parent sld name.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:45:44 -0800 (PST)

% I'd also like to know the current policy on this.  The current status
% is really confusing and can be a serious barrier to deploy IPv6.
% 
% Honestly, if we are allowed to live with the current spec
% (i.e. ip6.int. with the nibble format), I'll be really happy.
% However, the transition to ip6.arpa is inevitable, we should be ready
% for this as soon as possible, both in operation and in implementation.
% 
% 					JINMEI, Tatuya
% 					Communication Platform Lab.
% 					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
% 					[email-masked]

The IETF policy is clear. ip6.arpa.  It is also true that this policy was
not based on any technical grounds. That said, the IETF has also depricated
RIP.  And there are still some questions about the bitstring format vs nibble
format.  So I intend to continue to use the proven format for now, at least
until there are strong technical reasons to migrate.

-- 
--bill