>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:20:42 +0200 (CDT),
>>>>> Michael Kjorling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Except that ip6.arpa has a completely difference format for entries...
> Weren't bitlabels and the A6 and DNAME record types changed to
> experimental status? Granted, it was only an Internet-Draft as far as
> I have seen, and maybe someone knows more than I do about that.
> I can't find that particular I-D right now, though.
I think the draft is draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt.
The draft tried to move A6 and DNAME to experimental based on some
previous discussions, but some people are still making objections in
the last call period for the draft.
By the way, please note that using "ip6.arpa" as an upper domain for
IPv6 reverse lookups does not necessarily mean using bitlabels. In
fact, the intention of RFC3152 is to use the "ip6.arpa" domain
regardless of the labels (i.e. bitlabels or nibbles) for lower levels.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPv6 Users Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
