(Based on a suggestion from Randy, I'm cc'ing this message to the
dnsop and ngtrans MLs. I've dropped namedroppers but still keep the
ipng ML. Please refer to the attached message to follow the thread
context.)
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:45:44 -0800 (PST),
>>>>> Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> % 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.
> 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.
Let me confirm, do you mean the bitstring vs nibble format by the
"proven format", or does it include the upper domain (i.e. ip6.int. vs
ip6.arpa.)?
Anyway, through the responses so far, I feel we must definitely move
to ip6.arpa. (regardless of the bitstring vs nibble issue). The
migration should cause additional pain to deploy IPv6, but, with the
reality, we should start the migration now...
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Begin Message ---
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 PROTECTED] Roentgenstrasse 9-13
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de D-48149 Muenster / Germany
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],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 PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
