[as112-ops] IETF DNSOP participation request

[William F. Maton]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Warren Kumari wrote:

> As asked in the dnssop meeting, couldn't much of the "lameness, how to 
>get all AS112 operators to stick to IANA instructions related to 
>delegation of new zones, etc." issues be address by simply making AS112 
>be omniscient? As decisions to have AS112 answer /not answer for zones 
>get made, delegations can simply be added and removed.

So this is such a radically simple idea on the surface, it's hard not to 
like it.

On the otherhand, it would be interesting to see if done, how much more 
load would suddenly be shifted to AS112 nodes by default.  (I still 
believe there are 6bone nodes out there asking for resolution of 3ffe::/16 
addresses.)

What do as112-operators here think?

> Obviously this would require synthesizing answers[0], and not having 
>manually configured zones (and not having the servers be recursive as 
>they would then answer incorrectly for non-delegated space and…)
>
> This was specifically not asked on the dnsop list as I want to know 
>what ops thought first….
>
> W
>
> [0]: Yes, yes i *did* feel dirty writing that….
>>
>> 	I suppose the best thing for operators to do is to subscribe to the DNSOP mailing list (see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/charters) and comment on both AS112 drafts presently under consideration for working group adoption.
>>
>> 	The idea I have proposed is to split my draft into 2:  One that is simply an instruction to IANA like the AS112 IPv6 draft is, and the other for discussing delegation mechanisms like DNAME, obervations on lameness, other zones for delegation, etc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> wfms
>> _______________________________________________
>> as112-ops mailing list
>> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
>> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops
>>
>
>

wfms