Hi Joe,
At 08:33 22-05-2014, Joe Abley wrote:
We have two documents proceeding (in wglc) together, both relating
to AS112 service:
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname
The 6304bis document updates the advice to people running AS112
nodes to incorporate the new scheme described in the as112-dname
document, whilst also supporting the current scheme.
William has reminded me that there has been some work done amongst
current AS112 operators to add an IPv6 prefix to the current scheme,
and that some AS112 operators have deployed it. This makes those
AS112 nodes capable of receiving queries over both IPv4 and IPv6,
and means the AS112 service overall is IPv6-capable. The IPv6 number
resources were obtained by DNS-OARC (I presume from ARIN, although I
haven't checked).
The new scheme, described in as112-dname, already supports both IPv4 and IPv6.
We could add advice to AS112 node operators to configure those IPv6
addresses and prefixes to 6304bis.
The nameservers PRISONER.IANA.ORG, BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and
BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG would need AAAA records added in order for
resolvers to use IPv6 transport when querying the AS112 servers.
This could be added to the IANA Considerations section in 6304bis.
It's possible that the current scheme will be obsoleted by the DNAME
approach in the future. This is by no means certain, of course, and
we should expect both schemes to be live for some time.
Tim, Suz, colleagues -- what would you prefer? Should we add the
IPv6 bits to 6304bis in order to codify IPv6 support for the current
scheme, or should we leave the current scheme as-is?
I suggest adding the IPv6 bits in 6304bis. Please see RFC 6890 for
information about what to put in the (IANA) registries.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
