To:
itojun@iijlab.net
Cc:
Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, users@ipv6.org, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Matt Crawford" <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Date:
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:54:07 -0600
In-reply-to:
Your message of Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:43:22 +0900. <16815.979955002@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
> >I think it was recognized a long time ago that the initial deployment > >of A6 records should be limited to two (or at most 3) levels. ... > > I see... it is unfortunate RFC2874 does not cover it. > it has A6 reference from leaf customer A6 record to ISP A6 record, > and 5 levels of indirection. <blockquote> Until more deployment experience is gained with the A6 record, it is recommended that prefix delegations be limited to one or two levels. A reasonable phasing-in mechanism would be to start with no prefix delegations (all A6 records having prefix length 0) and then to move to the use of a single level of delegation within a single zone. (If the TTL of the "prefix" A6 records is kept to an appropriate duration the capability for rapid renumbering is not lost.) More aggressively flexible delegation could be introduced for a subset of hosts for experimentation. </blockquote> Just to drill down a bit, let me repeat: <blockquote> Until more deployment experience is gained with the A6 record, it is recommended that prefix delegations be limited to one or two levels. </blockquote>