North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?

  • From: Edward Lewis
  • Date: Wed Feb 11 09:34:46 2004

Having been present at the meeting that gave rise to the document (at the IETF meetings held in London, August 2001), I'd say that the material quoted in the document is at fault. (There was quite a lot of controversy at the meeting, perhaps my recollection isn't shared with all others. But this is my story and I'm sticking to it.)

The changes in status of bit labels, the A6, and DNAME were discussed in the context of DNS's support of IPv6. At the time the main debate was whether or not DNS records ought to be defined to support renumbering (among other features, but renumbering was the star). A6 and bit sting labels (forward and reverse) proved to be too much for the DNS to handle, the new thought was that such functionality ought to be pulled out of DNS and into tools the pre-processed zone definitions. E.g., something that generated AAAA records from a database, etc.

DNAME was kind of the "third record in." The change in it's "status" pertained to the role it played in supporting bit sting labels - which is why the "reverse tree" is mentioned in the deprecation. Looking at the document now, the document ought to have read "the use of DNAME RRs in the support of bit string labels is deprecated" - based on my memory.

PS - Note that DNAMEs are defined in RFC 2672, not in 2874. If you want to get all "IETF document lawyerish" about it (;)), the quoted material is referencing a discussion of DNAME in the context of supporting renumbering, not the definition DNAME itself.

RFC 2672: Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection
RFC 2874: DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering

At 14:45 +0200 2/11/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
 	RFC 3363 does NOT say that DNAME is deprecated.  All it says
 	is that since A6 was moving the exprimental using DNAME to
 	support renumbering is deprecated.
Which part of:

                        Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
   the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
   tree be deprecated.

do you difficulties in parsing?

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

History repeats, therefore my life is a rerun.