> On May 25, 2017, at 21:02 , [email protected] wrote:
>
> This proposal was intended to try to bring the v4 and v6 world together on
> the same policy. Because of the nibble boundary rule and rDNS, on the v6
> side, there are really only 5 choices in network size: /48, /52, /56, /60 and
> /64 without having to do non-standard CNAME tricks used when subdividing the
> rDNS for more than one customer in a /24 of v4.
Actually, this isn’t true.
It just means _EXTRA_ NS entries.
For example, 2001:db8:beef::/48 can be delegated as
f.e.e.b.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. as a single NS record set.
However, to delegate 2001:db8:beef:e000::/49, one needs two NS delegations:
e.f.e.e.b.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.
and f.f.e.e.b.8.d.b.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.
No CNAME requirement at all.
CNAME tricks would only come into play if delegating reverse for prefixes
longer than /124. (Just as in IPv4, they only come into play longer than /24).
Owen
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
