> > 4.1 DNS Issues
>
> > AAAA and PTR records for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses may
> > be installed in the global DNS. This may be useful if these
> > addresses are being used for site to site or VPN style applications,
> > or for sites that wish to avoid separate DNS systems for inside and
> > outside traffic.
>
> > The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this
> > document.
>
> > We have to be *very* careful here. If we allow PTR's to
> > be installed in the global DNS then globally reachable
> > nameservers *have* to exist for each prefix allocated.
> > Otherwise the problems that the AS112 project is trying to
> > deal with will appear here as well.
>
> > This is a long term operational cost associated with ULA-C.
>
> Well, please expand on this so we can discuss in more detail.
>
> My assumption is that some (but not all) ULA-C holders will want to be
> able to have PTR records. This seems operationally useful to me, for
> those that choose to use them and place them in the public DNS
> tree. Thus, we shouldn't ban it outright. That is, the question is
> whether the RIRs then would need to support the creation of such
> records for registered ULA-C owners.
>
> And help me understand how this equates to the AS112 issues. For sites
> that (today) get PI space and don't actually advertise it to the
> internet, aren't the DNS issues _exactly_ the same?
Yes they are similar but I suspect that the scale of traffic
will differ markedly.
One thing I can be certain of. There will be reverse queries for
ULA-C space. A lot of these queries will originate from sites
using ULA-C but have not setup nameservers to intercept those
queries because they don't care about the reverse mappings.
Shifting the NXDOMAIN load from the servers for C.F.IP6.ARPA
will be harder than shifting the load from the IN-ADDR.ARPA
servers for 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA was because C.F.IP6.ARPA will
be in use and the NXDOMAIN load will be randomly spread
below C.F.IP6.ARPA.
I also believe that most but not all of the sites using
ULA-C will have other routable space. Requiring that some
of the servers are not ULA-C is not a excessive burden.
Failure to supply nameservers is cost shifting which we
should not be encouraging.
I really don't want to have to add C.F.IP6.ARPA to the list
of namespaces in draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones. We will
have failed with ULA-C if that occurs.
Mark
> Thomas
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
