To:
bmanning@karoshi.com
cc:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>, <Mohsen.Souissi@nic.fr>, <dnsop@cafax.se>, <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
From:
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Date:
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:34:31 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To:
<200207150621.GAA14594@vacation.karoshi.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote: > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brad Knowles wrote: > > [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to > > miss and therefore delete mis-posts. so fix subscription addresses! ] > > > > > 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.. > > > > Yet another instance of Linux jumping the gun... :) I seem to recall there was some Best Current Practises about this 11 months ago. -- 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