To:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc:
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:
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B
<jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Date:
Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:44:17 +0900
In-Reply-To:
<a05111b1cb957b542d348@[10.0.1.60]>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Wanderlust/2.6.1 (Upside Down) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Subject:
Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:10:44 +0200, >>>>> Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> said: >> 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. What exactly do you mean by BIND 9.2.1? 1. the resolver library under lib/bind 2. the resolver routine in lwresd 3. both 1 and 2 4. others In my understanding (I've quickly checked the code again, too), both 1 and 2 only tries ip6.arpa with bitstring labels. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp