IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

[itojun]

i understand some implementation (BIND 9.3?) does this,

i think it's all bind9, but certainly all bind 9.2 and later.

but is the behavior documented somewhere in the set of RFCs?

yes. marka just quoted all of that.

for instance, does djbdns do it? does MS DNS server do it?

i'm very skeptical about the possibility (or reality) of DNAME-based
transition.

as a practical matter, it is impossible to ensure that all name servers
and resolvers understand DNAME. but it is very possible to ensure that
a given zone, such as "8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa" in ISC's case, is only
served by authority servers who understand DNAME and do CNAME synthesis.

therefore it is very practical to consider a DNAME-based transition.

2

: as a practical matter, it is impossible to ensure that all name servers
: and resolvers understand DNAME. but it is very possible to ensure that
: a given zone, such as "8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa" in ISC's case, is only
: served by authority servers who understand DNAME and do CNAME synthesis.

Would it be too much to try to get the RIRs to agree that "ip6.int." get a
DNAME and all other zones get unlinked in a shorter timeframe? i.e. why go
through the motions of many different subzones of ip6.int. having DNAMEs
when just one record will do for the world?

In any other Internet context, I can see this as being too many cooks in the
kitchen, but the entities serving up ip6.int. zones are of a reasonably
small number.