Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-20 00:07, Scott Leibrand wrote:
However, I do have some routers with interfaces that need numbering,
and I'd rather avoid renumbering them when I change upstreams. Since
ULA-C is cheap and easy to get, I register myself a block of it, and
use it to number my router interfaces. Since I'd rather my customers
saw DNS names instead of IPv6 addresses in their traceroutes, I
delegate the reverse DNS for my ULA-C block to a nameserver on my
upstream's PA space, and set up proper PTR records for all my routers.
Scott, what feature of existing ULAs makes them unsuitable for this
usage today? In the ridiculously unlikely event of a ULA prefix clash,
this would be detected up-front when trying to set up the reverse
delegation, and then you'd simply generate a different ULA prefix.
As far as I know there's no mechanism to delegate reverse DNS for a
locally generated ULA, since there's no "ownership". IMO any move to
start delegating .arpa authority for ULAs would be de facto ULA-C, so if
we're going to do that we should do it right and do the other
registration functions that should go along with the DNS delegation.
-Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
