well, that RFC has in incorrect statement. It was not IETF consensus, it was IESG/IAB consensus. It is also true that from the last IETF, bitstring (A6) was moved to experimental status, while nibble (AAAA) was retained on the standards track.
% >From the RFC 3152: % % > 1. Why IP6.ARPA? % (snip) % > IETF consensus was reached that the IP6.ARPA domain be used for % > address to DNS name mapping for the IPv6 address space [RFC2874]. % % This sentence seems to be encouraging us to implement ip6.arpa % and bit-string label described in the RFC2874. This might be a % cause of our confusion. % % > % 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 PROTECTED] % > % > 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 % % -- % SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro @ NTT Communications % -------------------------------------------------------------------- % 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 PROTECTED] % -------------------------------------------------------------------- % -- --bill
