Last Call: Secondary service on ns.ripe.net for reverse delegations
Dear WG, at the Tallinn meeting, Brett Carr gave a presentation on DNS operations at the RIPE NCC. In his report a proposal regarding the DNS name service for /16 reverse was made. See <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/r54-minutes.html>, item [D] for the minutes and slide 12 of the presentation <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/DNS_update.pdf> for details. This resulted in action item 54.1 on the NCC to solicit feedback on the proposal. Brett started a thread on the DNS WG mailing list on May, 14th <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2007/msg00107.html> (Message-ID: <4A6256C3-97B5-4415-BC93-9A2978A01A20@ripe.net>). Summary: To eliminate an inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies, where /16 reverse on ns.ripe.net is mandatory for v4 and there's no such policy for v6, three options were given: 1) Make ns.ripe.net mandatory on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 2) Make ns.ripe.net optional on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 3) Discontinue the secondary service on ns.ripe.net for new delegations. The NCC's preference was (2). The thread started as mentioned above saw 8 replies until June. Those who expressed an opinion were in favour of going forward with (2). Since the thread hasn't been active for a while, the WG chairs would like to issue a Last Call on this topic. Please take these remarks into consideration: o While cost of service has been mentioned, detailed discussion would be a topic for the NCC Services WG. For now we assume that the cost structure (essentially: no additional cost) will remain unmodified. o When the secondary service is "optional" this should be read in a symmetric way, i.e. not only the /16 maintainer can choose to opt-out, but also the NCC could, on reasonable operational grounds, terminate or not activate support for a particular zone. Now, finally, even though this issue is not subject to the PDP, this is a Last Call until Friday, 31 August 2007, 12:00 UTC Please voice your opinion, the default will be to continue with (2) above. We'd like to ask the NCC to prepare an implementation plan after this date. -Peter Koch [DNS WG co-chair]
On 31 Jul 2007, at 05:47, Peter Koch wrote:
Please voice your opinion, the default will be to continue with (2) above.
My opinion is in favour of the default. 8-) Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin IT Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9
Dear WG, this is a reminder that the Last Call issued in <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2007/msg00135.html> (Message-ID: <20070731044718.GA7358@denics7.denic.de>)
Summary:
To eliminate an inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies, where /16 reverse on ns.ripe.net is mandatory for v4 and there's no such policy for v6, three options were given:
1) Make ns.ripe.net mandatory on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 2) Make ns.ripe.net optional on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 3) Discontinue the secondary service on ns.ripe.net for new delegations.
The NCC's preference was (2).
will expire
Friday, 31 August 2007, 12:00 UTC
Please voice your opinion, the default will be to continue with (2) above. We'd like to ask the NCC to prepare an implementation plan after this date.
-Peter Koch [DNS WG co-chair]
Dear WG, the Last Call issued 2007-07-31 ...
Summary:
To eliminate an inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies, where /16 reverse on ns.ripe.net is mandatory for v4 and there's no such policy for v6, three options were given:
1) Make ns.ripe.net mandatory on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 2) Make ns.ripe.net optional on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 3) Discontinue the secondary service on ns.ripe.net for new delegations.
The NCC's preference was (2).
The thread started as mentioned above saw 8 replies until June. Those who expressed an opinion were in favour of going forward with (2).
has expired. Noone opposed the proposal, so per default judgement there's consensus to proceed with option (2) above.
We'd like to ask the NCC to prepare an implementation plan after this date.
Which is why I'd like to ask Brett to care of the implementation on behalf of the NCC. Thanks for bringing this issue forward and also thanks to everybody who contributed to the discussion. -Peter Koch [DNS WG co-chair]
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Koch [mailto:pk@DENIC.DE] Sent: 11 September 2007 17:30 To: RIPE DNS WG Cc: Brett Carr Subject: Re: [dns-wg] Last Call: Secondary service on ns.ripe.net for reverse delegations
Dear WG,
the Last Call issued 2007-07-31 ...
Summary:
To eliminate an inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies, where /16 reverse on ns.ripe.net is mandatory for v4 and there's no such policy for v6, three options were given:
1) Make ns.ripe.net mandatory on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 2) Make ns.ripe.net optional on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 3) Discontinue the secondary service on ns.ripe.net for new delegations.
The NCC's preference was (2).
The thread started as mentioned above saw 8 replies until June. Those who expressed an opinion were in favour of going forward with (2).
has expired. Noone opposed the proposal, so per default judgement there's consensus to proceed with option (2) above.
We'd like to ask the NCC to prepare an implementation plan after this date.
Which is why I'd like to ask Brett to care of the implementation on behalf of the NCC. Thanks for bringing this issue forward and also thanks to everybody who contributed to the discussion.
This is now implemented, ns.ripe.net is no longer mandatory for /16 reverse delegations and can also be removed from existing delegations if you so require. Regards Brett -- Brett Carr RIPE Network Coordination Centre Manager -- DNS Services Group Singel 258 Amsterdam NL GPG Key fingerprint = F20D B2A7 C91D E370 44CF F244 B6A1 EF48 E743 F7D8
participants (3)
-
Brett Carr
-
Niall O'Reilly
-
Peter Koch