[as112-ops] RFC4193 section 4.4

[William F. Maton]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Eric Ziegast wrote:

> Is there any (blasphemous) interest in running a global "c.f.ip6.arpa"
> or "d.f.ip6.arpa" nameserver as a part of AS112?

I've kicked around the idea of pushing out another IETF I-D on the subject 
of delegating more reverse maps to AS112 PLUS junk domains (such as 
those found in certain vendor literature) on the dnsops mailing list and 
there's been a few that expressed support on that.  I suspect the root 
operators wouldn't mind seeing some of those loads go as well.

Just need the first pair of as112 drafts to complete their extraordinary 
4 or 5 year tour through the IETF. ;-)

> It might be interesting to compare traffic levels between the current
> traffic as IPV6 adoption spreads.  It might also help people catch
> leaky nameserver misconfigurations that are violating the RFC.

+1

>
> --
> Eric Ziegast
>
> On 12/27/10 12:52 PM, kevin brintnall wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:05:32AM -0800, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>>> Happy new year everyone!
>>>
>>> I am just a curious geek , so I want to ask, does anyone see over 5Kqps
>>> per location with their AS112 install?
>>
>> A few years back, we used to get an average of 5-6 kq/sec, but not we're
>> hovering around 2kq/s.  Interestingly, our peak (9kq/s) hasn't changed
>> much over the years.  We announce our AS112 instance (as112.qwest.net)
>> globally.
>>
>> I think the drop is partially due to the built-in empty zones feature
>> in newer versions of BIND[1].
>>
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops
>

wfms