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

[Bruce Campbell <bruce.campbell@ripe.net>]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, JINMEI Tatuya wrote:

> > 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?

This is not known, and no delegation exists in ip6.arpa for the 6bone
(e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa).  The focus so far in ip6.arpa delegation process has
been on the RIR delegations.  I have forwarded the question to the
appropriate people who will be meeting during IETF-52, and an answer
should be available then.  ( I'm actually not attending this IETF )

One *possible* and easy solution would be to DNAME the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to
e.f.f.3.ip6.int ( I'm ignoring technical issues of having to first
delegate f.f.3.ip6.arpa to a DNAME-capable set of nameservers first ).

This has the good side of preserving current functionality when the
deployed resolver bas looks at ip6.arpa instead of ip6.int.  It has the
down side of effectively limiting 6bone to using 'ip6.int' as you cannot
then DNAME back into the ip6.arpa tree.  Somehow I don't think that such a
restriction is what the 6bone community wants.

No matter what technical tricks are down further up in the tree by the
RIRs/ICANN etc, the change in the root ip6 tree *will* require *all*
currently deployed delegations to make *some* sort of change.

Regards,

-- 
                             Bruce Campbell                            RIPE
                                                                        NCC
                                                                 Operations