To:
<jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Cc:
<ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <dnsop@cafax.se>, <lynn@icann.org>, <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>, <orobles@nic.mx>, <pdeblanc@usvi.net>, <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>, <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <mcade@att.com>, <Richard.Tindal@neulevel.com>, <ck@nrm.se>, <RCochetti@verisign.com>, <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>, <harris@cabase.org.ar>, <greg_ruth@yahoo.com>, <yjpark@myepark.com>, <vany@sdnp.org.pa>, <mueller@syracuse.edu>, <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>, <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>, <kstubbs@dninet.net>, <aaus@mpaa.org>, <gcarey@carey.cl>, <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
From:
"Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>
Date:
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:11:12 -0600
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?
----- Original Message ----- From: <JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H (B <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>)> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> Cc: <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; <dnsop@cafax.se>; <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.? > >>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:31:39 -0800, > >>>>> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> said: > > > 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. > > As for the registry side transition, I have another question. I saw > delegations for 2001:0200::/24 to APNIC. What is the current status > about 3ffe::/16? Is there a plan to delegate ip6.arpa. sub domains > for that block? > > JINMEI, Tatuya > Communication Platform Lab. > Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. > jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp --------------- Others have stated that 3FFE users are on some sort of "experimental network". They are not connected to the real Internet, which has its foundation in IPv4. With the new AAAA records in the DNS, there is no room for the 3FFE, because of the 2002:[IPv4]:0000 values. Apparently, the 3FFE users use A6 DNS records, which are not recommended because of a variety of reasons. The IETF recently came to this conclusion. It is unclear why it took so long. Maybe stability and security are now more serious concerns ? Compare that to 2002:[IPv4]:0000 users, who are using IPv4 in the extended proxy mode, whereby the IPv4 header is augmented with extra information to route the packets to a larger address space. The 2002 users can of course use the IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones to record their address allocations. Many companies, including ICANN, are working on expanding the TLD variety. This will help to create the equivalent of thousands of Address Registries, where there are currently 3 dominant ones, and several private registries operated by the companies that got in early on the IPv4 address allocations. It all boils down to fairness. Which list do you think is more fair ? The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space or The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Jim Fleming http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/ http://www.IPv8.info IPv16....One Better !!