Sorry about coming in late on this thread, but I would like to propose that we: * stop any further IPv6 reverse delegations in ip6.int * move all existing reverse delegations from ip6.int into ip6.arpa * define all future IPv6 reverse delegations in ip6.arpa only. Paul -----Original Message----- From: David Kessens [mailto:david@IPRG.nokia.com] Sent: 07 January 2003 00:50 To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net; dns-wg@ripe.net Subject: IPv6 reverse DNS meeting at last IETF Hi, I would like to share with you the results of a private discussion that started at a meeting at the last IETF regarding IPv6 reverse delegation issues. The group of people was an ad-hoc group which is worried that the process for moving to ip6.arpa is stagnating. People involved in the discussion were: Kurt Erik Lindqvist David Kessens Johan Ihren Andrei Robachevsky Patrik Faltstrom Jim Reid The topic of the meeting was IPv6 reverse DNS. We agreed on the following: - the move to ip6.arpa is not on track - it's probably best that we start to give attention to this problem in the DNS wg to avoid any duplication in efforts. (BTW this also means that the chairs of the ipv6 wg and DNS wg need a meeting schedule that will allow IPv6 wg participants to attend the DNS wg - we, Jim Reid & David Kessens, have already made this very clear to the RIPE NCC). - Andrei made it clear that the RIPE NCC wants to move forward with a pragmatic approach - we should stop making further delegations in ip6.int (in so far that this is within our powers, at the minimum we can recommend this) - we should make it possible that 3ffe address holders can start getting reverse delegations in ip6.arpa. This is important because it will allow software coders/vendors to do look ups in ip6.arpa only instead of doing kludges by looking in both or in the wrong one (ip6.int) we think this is important to get started as soon as possible since software tends to stay alive longer than desirable Andrei/RIPE NCC was going to ask IAB and/or other powers that be to get this moving. We as a community should help if necessary by a supporting statement. (Andrei already sent his request and is working on a proposal for implementation) - 6to4 reverse delegation We discussed this topic briefly as a lesser priority item. As 6to4 is a transition mechanism for networks that can not get native access to v6, we concluded that reverse delegation might not be that important for the 6to4 addresses. This is clearly a point for more discussion for the DNS wg. Obviously, this is just the opinion of a small group - your comments are welcome! Please follow up to the dns-wg list only (unless you don't agree on moving this topic to the dns-wg in the first place :-)). Thanks, David K. --- ---------------------------------------------------- All subscriber postings should be sent to: ietf-discuss@crpo.bt.co.uk Requests to be added to, or removed from, this list should be sent to: graham.travers@bt.com CONFIDENTIALITY Note that people from Wholesale, Ignite and Openworld subscribe to this mailing list in addition to BTexact people. Do not post any material you do not want to be seen by other Lines of Business. ----------------------------------------------------