To:
Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>
cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
ggm@apnic.net
Date:
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:18:59 +0000
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:08:35 -0700." <3098DCD8-8A2B-11D6-9C93-00039376A6AA@sun.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt
> > --Boundary_(ID_9YQaujQF4/xZHQntVm8C/g) > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > > On Friday, June 28, 2002, at 02:21 AM, ggm@apnic.net wrote: > > > > > I don't understand why you say 6to4 use of 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa has scaling > > problems. > > > > There was a brief discussion in the corridor at NANOG-Toronto, and as > > far as I can see, it should be easy to manage the reverse tree for > > existing > > IPv4 users by forseeable RIR processes when the time comes. > > Can you please elaborate how this will work? > Will it require collaboration from the IPv4 upstream provider? If its done top-down yes. if we worked out a way to take existing delegation rights in 4land, and map them cleaning into 6land, it might be mitigated. > (i.e. will the delegation under the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa follow the same > path as under in-addr.arpa? I think so, yes. > Another way to ask the question is where will 6to4 users have > to go to get reverse delegation? to their ISP or directly to the RIR? I think to their ISP. > > How will it work when the IPv4 address is transient, i.e. DHCP allocated > for a short lease (typically less than a day)? > Isn't this the same for any transient address DNS issue? I don't see a specific 6 Issue here. cheers -George -- George Michaelson | APNIC Email: ggm@apnic.net | PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 Phone: +61 7 3858 3100 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 | http://www.apnic.net