To:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
cc:
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>, <Mohsen.Souissi@nic.fr>, <dnsop@cafax.se>, <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <vladimir.ksinant@6wind.com>, <rfc1886@nic.fr>, <g6@g6.asso.fr>
From:
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Date:
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:49:22 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To:
<a05111b1cb957b542d348@[10.0.1.60]>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 6:35 AM +0900 2002/07/15, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > the co-existence of ip6.int and ip6.arpa tree will require us to: > > query ip6.arpa; > > if (no record) > > query ip6.int; > > for backward compatibility. was it taken into account, or did you > > test just "ip6.arpa" lookups? > > I checked the source code for BIND 9.2.1, and IIRC it checks > ip6.int first and then ip6.arpa second. This allows us to stand up > ip6.arpa whenever, and then once that is set, we can tear down > ip6.int. FWIW, e.g. Linux glibc resolver only checks ip6.arpa now, so you'd better start standing up.. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords