[as112-ops] IPv6 + AS112?

[William F. Maton Sotomayor]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Jonathan Stewart wrote:

> 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.

The purpose of -3 and -4 was to separate out chatter for IPv6 in case we 
wanteed to make some comparisons.

>
> 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
>

wfms