Joe Abley (jabley) writes:
>
> (b) Inclusion of IPv6-related RFC6303-style zones on AS112 servers
> (2) whether the list of zones specified is complete and accurate
[...]
> (b) and (2) above also prompt the question of how we (more generally)
> might manage the zones served by AS112 nodes, given that there is
> only loose coordination between AS112 node operators and potentially
> a significant deployment of (globally) invisible AS112 nodes which
> serve captive audiences (enterprises, ISPs own customers, etc).
... all of whom may have a voluntarily incomplete implementation
of AS112 zones on, or upstream of, their recursive servers - not
the least because they may themselves be using the networks that
the reverse zones provide reverse information for.
> There is a risk, depending on the update mechanism, that additional
> zones delegated to the existing AS112 servers might be lame on a
> significant number of servers, and the impact of that lameness ought
> to be assessed.
With regards to private AS112 announcement leaking from these
servers ? Or did you have other things in mind ?
Would make sense to dig a bit deeper on the effect.
> In addition we now have a registry of locally-served zones, per
> RFC6303, and we might consider mechanisms to update AS112 nodes from
> that registry (or constrain the procedures for updating that registry
> also to consider AS112 support for the zones, as they are added).
Got any ideas on that front already ? And, where would the the
"official"
list of locally-served zones reside ?
draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01
suggest that "IANA needs to create a new registry of Special-Use Domain
Names."
> It feels like there's an opportunity here to align these various
> registries and knit in some process relating to the AS112 project.
> What exists right now, together with what is proposed to exist, is a
> little messy.
Sounds like a plan :)
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
