Hi Mark, On 2012-06-27, at 20:01, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I personally think a vendor education campain would be more productive. > We can't do much about already deployed servers but we can make > sure the next major release supports RFC 6303 by default. I'm not sure we can influence the next major release of anything with any certainty. I would put money on (a) AS112 traffic not dropping to zero any time soon, and (b) if there is v4-related AS112 traffic, that there will also be v6-related AS112 traffic once we have an opportunity to sink it. >> - we do need some mechanism to delegate (e.g.) zones under IP6.ARPA correspo >> nding to the various v6 analogues of 1918 > > Do we have data that says we need to? I don't think we get that data until we look for it, and I think we look for it by delegating some zones and counting queries. We just need somewhere to delegate the zones to. This document is a proposal which would facilitate such a query sink. > Remember RFC 6303 style > support for ULA was permitted a long time ago. ISC added it to > named in 9.4.0. Full RFC 6303 support, to cover the RFC 1918 > reverses, was only added in 9.9.0 the first major release after RFC > 6303 was published. I think I interpret your note as "ISC is taking steps to reduce traffic on the AS112 servers through the knobs and switches available in BIND" which I think is commendable and great, but not entirely an answer to the question. >> Adopt this doc? Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
