----- Original Message ----- From: <JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H (B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)> To: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:06 PM Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?
> >>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:31:39 -0800, > >>>>> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> 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... > > > agreed. but the pain is minimal. > > Since resolver implementations that do not use ip6.arpa have been > widely deployed, I don't think the pain is minimal. I'm afraid we > should maintain both ip6.arpa. and ip6.int. for same contents forever. > > But..., > > > note that, initially, the content of > > ip6.arpa is directly that of ip6.int. in fact, one could have the same > > zone file pointed to by both names. > > yes, that's the way that I configured ip6.arpa zones in my v6 network. > > > the big pain in the transition is > > that of the registries, whois, etc. and they've been working on this > > for some months. > > I know, I realized some portion of the ip6.arpa (nibble) domain has > already been delegated. > > So, while I still don't think the migration overhead is minimal, it > seems to me that all I have to do now is to implement new resolver > code, deploy it, and start operation with ip6.arpa. If the migration > is inevitable, we cannot delay it. > > JINMEI, Tatuya > Communication Platform Lab. > Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > This sounds like one of those technical topics for the ICANN Names Council. Jim Fleming http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/ http://www.IPv8.info IPv16....One Better !!
