[as112-ops] IPv6 + AS112?

[Jonathan Stewart]

I agree with Joe.

If there were AAAA records for for blackhole-1 and -2, we could provide the
current in-addr.arpa. records over IPv6 transport, something which would
work today.

Adding new zones from ip6.arpa is a technically separate idea.


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote:

>
> On 2013-06-26, at 01:25, Kim Davies <kim.davies at icann.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Jonathan Stewart <
> jonathan.stewart at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Until there is a zone delegated to blackhole-3 or blackhole-4, right.
> >> I notice that the hostnames resolve, but it's the ip6.arpa delegations
> which are not there.
> >>
> >> So pardon my ignorance, but what would it take to turn this on?  A
> decision by the IANA?  An RFC about the IPv6 aspects of AS112?
> >
> > We added the host names last week. We are currently looking into
> identifying who the relevant people are who need to consent in order for
> delegations to be made.
>
> There would be no such problem to solve if the AAAA records were simply
> added to blackhole-1 and blackhole-2 (in the sense that the existing AS112
> zones would immediately be reachable over IPv6).
>
> As far as adding new zones to AS112, that's an open problem and there are
> two approaches being discussed in dnsop. It's quite premature to add more
> delegations right now, I would say (and such an action would likely result
> in Bad Things since there's no practical way to coordinate the add/drop of
> zones on AS112 servers right now, and lame delegations would certainly
> result.)
>
>
> Joe




-- 
     Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/as112-ops/attachments/20130626/da2abc15/attachment.htm>