Subject: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment regarding AS112

From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:45:33 -0400 (EDT)

All,
 	I have read this document and have just one comment to make in 
context of AS112 DNS operations:  Would it make sense to delegate the 
reverse map for the addresses specified in section 2 towards the AS112 
project?  In the past, the unicast addresses for documentation have, of 
course, been used by end-users and administrators (having personally 
cringed at seeing this myself behind someone's NAT).  The reverse lookups 
then go on to load the root DNS servers and on it goes.  cf RFC 6303 - 
6305.

Thanks,

wfms

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:27:54 -0700

On 7/28/2011 4:45 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
>
> All,
> I have read this document and have just one comment to make in context
> of AS112 DNS operations: Would it make sense to delegate the reverse map
> for the addresses specified in section 2 towards the AS112 project? In
> the past, the unicast addresses for documentation have, of course, been
> used by end-users and administrators (having personally cringed at
> seeing this myself behind someone's NAT). The reverse lookups then go on
> to load the root DNS servers and on it goes. cf RFC 6303 - 6305.

What do you think of getting actual reverse mappings for this? At
least for IPv4 it could be done. For IPv6 it is slightly more tricky,
depending on the authoritative DNS servers. Some servers should allow
a way to do PTR without explicitly having every entry in the zone
file or memory.

Stig

>
> Thanks,
>
> wfms
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:15 -0400 (EDT)

> a way to do PTR without explicitly having every entry in the zone

Hi Stig,

 	There have been discussions about this in DNSOP and on the 
as112-ops mailing lists.  It's possible, I believe, to do so.  But this is 
one of those instances where we're faced with whether a draft like this 
should incorporate the appropriate language to have the delegation done, 
or if it should come from DNSOP.  BTW, there is another draft waiting for 
DNSOP adoption that touches upon delegation of some IPv6 multicast as well 
as IPv6 unicast addresses that I'm sure some folks from MBONED may have 
already commented on.

 	Regarding the entry of every undesirable zone and maintaining 
those entries as they come and go, there are two informal proposals:

- Use DNAME to keep management overhead down (but does this truly relieve
   DNS root server load?);

- Delegate every reverse map not in use, and then peel back from AS112
   those zones formally delegated for legitimate use.

Or a combination of both.

It might be good to compare notes with the DNSOP working group co-chairs 
to see which way may be best - if you want to incorporate my suggestion or 
if they and you feel it may be better to simply do that through an 
existing draft waiting to be adopted there (please see 
draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as an example).

Thanks,

wfms