>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
