Subject: Re: v4/v6 dns thoughts? Date: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:01:15AM -0400 Quoting Andrew Parnell ([email protected]): > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I also don't recommend doing the foo.v4/foo.v6 thing in your forwards. > > There's > > really no advantage to do it. Most tools either have separate IPv4/IPv6 > > variants > > or have command-line switches for address-family control if you care. > > For most tools that I ordinarily use, I would certainly agree with > this. The only exception might be from a web browser; while there are > ways that they can be reconfigured to only use certain IP versions in > certain cases, it is probably more straightforward to use > www.ipvN.domain.tld or a similar name. > > For reverse DNS, I completely agree that there is no reason to use a > different name.
While I am no enemy to /56 allocations (cross-thread alert!) I for the
most part tend to agree with Owen and would so here too. Possibly with the
addition of separate names in a subdomain for trouble-shooting. Selecting
protocol is something best done slightly lower in the stack. I did so
with $INCLUDE directives[0] at a former employer. For routers, where it
matters much more than for end-user stuff like web servers.
--
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
DIDI ... is that a MARTIAN name, or, are we in ISRAEL?
[0] Like so:
$ORIGIN isp.tld.
$INCLUDE "file-with-AAAA-records-without-FQDN"
$INCLUDE "file-with-A-records-without-FQDN"
$ORIGIN v4.isp.tld.
$INCLUDE "file-with-A-records-without-FQDN"
$ORIGIN v6.isp.tld.
$INCLUDE "file-with-AAAA-records-without-FQDN"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
