To:
pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola)
Cc:
brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles), itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino), 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:
bmanning@karoshi.com
Date:
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 06:21:45 +0000 (UCT)
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0207150848470.31868-100000@netcore.fi> from "Pekka Savola" at Jul 15, 2002 08:49:22 AM
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
> > 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... :) --bill