Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Let me confirm, do you mean the bitstring vs nibble format by the
> "proven format", or does it include the upper domain (i.e. ip6.int. vs
> ip6.arpa.)?

the two issues are entirely orthogonal.  one can have any type of RR in any
zone.  e.g. it is only the external semantics which says that an MX record
makes no sense in in-addr.arpa.

the ip6.arpa infrastructure is being set up, and the transition looks easy,
but we should be prudent and give software a couple of years to catch up.
luckily, the v6 community keeps pretty current on software.

the bitstring label issue has been pretty much gone around in ngtrans and
dnsop, and i belive the drafts deprecating bitstring labels are working
their way through process (but have not checked my tracking system to see
where they are).

> Anyway, through the responses so far, I feel we must definitely move
> to ip6.arpa. (regardless of the bitstring vs nibble issue).  The
> migration should cause additional pain to deploy IPv6, but, with the
> reality, we should start the migration now...

agreed.  but the pain is minimal.  note that, initially, the content of
ip6.arpa is directly that of ip6.int.  in fact, one could have the same
zone file pointed to by both names.  the big pain in the transition is
that of the registries, whois, etc.  and they've been working on this
for some months.

randy