Adding Peter Koch who was working on a draft related to this
as well.
Stig
On 9/13/2013 9:11 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
Its on hold, pending some closure on smarter ways of managing AS112. Warren is
a co-author on a draft which might make it trivially easy to add and remove
things to AS112 service, so everyone seemed to think it was worth holding back
on an instruction to IANA to delegate, pending that work.
I think ?Leo? observed that for multicast in general, IANA actually does
provide some services, and its possible/arguable a certain class of address
deserves real delegation. I don't personally think the link-locals are in this
set.
-G
On 14/09/2013, at 11:45 AM, Erik Kline <[email protected]> wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-michaelson-as112-ipv6-02
+ggm for any historical context he'd care to share
On 14 September 2013 10:18, Brandon Applegate <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, David Conrad wrote:
Would ip6.arpa PTR service be helpful? (no opinion, just curious)
The v4 multicast PTRs didn't seem to be used all that much.
I would agree with this, probably not used much. Seems like a trivial thing
to get delegated and set up though (unless I'm missing something).
If it is trivial (i.e. for IANA to host it) - I was just wondering why it
was done for ipv4 and not ipv6.
The one example that came to mind would be a sniffer doing DNS lookups. It
can be helpful sometimes to have the answer come up directly in the capture
instead of back and forth to IANA's website.
--
Brandon Applegate - CCIE 10273
PGP Key fingerprint:
8779 B023 7637 CEC8 C5C6 4052 664D 7E08 3CBB 1739
"SH1-0151. This is the serial number, of our orbital gun."
