I'm particularly interested in hearing what kind of opinions the WG has on this particular problem..
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Substantial (or not-so-editorial) comments: > > > > 1. Section 1.1 (1.1 Representing IPv6 Addresses in DNS Records) > > > > In particular one should note that the use of A6 records, DNAME > > records in the reverse tree, or Bitlabels in the reverse tree is not > > recommended [2]. > > > > I think this is an overstatement about DNAME. The text looks meaning > > DNAME is not recommended *in any way* in the IPv6 reverse tree. For > > example, people would read this to mean it is discouraged to use DNAME > > to manage both ip6.arpa and ip6.int zones as described in > > http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2002-1.html Yes. > > But, in my understanding, the sense of the discussion in RFC3363 ([2]) > > is that DNAME in the reverse tree is deprecated for the reverse side > > of the A6 usage. That is, the usage for constructing multi-level, > > hierarchal reverse trees, particularly with bitstring labels. Chaining was indeed one important argument in the discussions. I do not remember them in detail to be able to comment whether it was intentional to deprecate DNAME for all reverse usage or just with A6. IMHO, the document language: 4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the other isn't either. [split by me] Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental, the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree be deprecated. The first part *seems* indicate that at least when writing the document, there was no justified use for DNAME in the reverse tree. However, this still does leave it open what's the case about non-fragmented, non-A6 reverses (the scenario which Jinmei said). And to that my feeling was that the implementation expense etc. of DNAME is not really worth it in the non-fragmented scenario, and that it might re-open problems we saw in A6 wrt. chaining. > We should just reissue RFC3363 with *all* references to DNAME > removed. It continually causes problems. [...] First, I think there should be consensus that DNAME is a good thing, and it's OK to use it everywhere. :) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
