In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?
GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= writes:
>I've cc'ed this reply to namedroppers, which might be a better place
>to discuss this issue.
>
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:35:53 +0100,
>>>>>> JOIN Project Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> recently I was very surprised, when I found that there is an existing
>> ip6.arpa. domain, where the reverse IPv6 nibble format is delegated to
>> the registries.
>
>> I found no mail or announcement anywhere that from now on ip6.arpa should be
>
>> used for the reverse nibble format. Is that a fact, or is ip6.arpa just a
>> global testing scenario that is confusing me?
>
>> I know that ip6.arpa should be used instead of ip6.int for political reasons
>,
>> but I always expected to stay the nibble format in ip6.int and the bit-strin
>g
>> labels to appear in ip6.arpa someday.
>
>> Well, ok, now that the bit-string labels are to be changed to experimental,
>> that might be not possible anymore. But I'm not sure if it such a good idea
>> to just change the zones.
>
>> Right now there is a well established and well working tree under ip6.int.
>> If there will grow a second tree under ip6.arpa now, things might become
>> very confusing.
>> As a resolver, I don't know if I have to lookup the name for my IPv6 address
>
>> starting with .arpa or starting .int. If I lookup in the wrong tree, I might
>
>> get no answer, while the correct one is in the other tree. Yes, I could
>> lookup in both trees, but if the answers differ, which one is the correct on
>e?
>
>> Is there a solution for this? What is the current policy? Maybe I am confuse
>d
>> because I missed something?
>
>I'd also like to know the current policy on this. The current status
>is really confusing and can be a serious barrier to deploy IPv6.
>
>Honestly, if we are allowed to live with the current spec
>(i.e. ip6.int. with the nibble format), I'll be really happy.
>However, the transition to ip6.arpa is inevitable, we should be ready
>for this as soon as possible, both in operation and in implementation.
See RFC 3152, aka BCP 49.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
