Havard Eidnes <h...@uninett.no> wrote:
>> Hi, while editing draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation, it
occured
>> to me that the automatic reverse that
>> draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options could enable
>> better/simpler RFC2317 delegation for IPv4 subnets.
>>
>> My experience is that some of the pushback for doing 2317 is that there
is
>> sane way to automate it, and too many confusing ways to do it.
>>
>> So, I wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-ipv4-reverse-in-v6/
>>
>> which basically says to point the CNAMEs into the IPv6 delegation that is
>> "already" (will have been) being done.
> The actual convention to use isn't really specified by 2317, only
> a few examples are given. This one should work just as well as
> any other convention, and if this makes it easier to use, I'm all
> for it.
Yes, the lack of a convention in 2317 was something that I noticed, and
thought wait... what if we adopted *this* convention.
(I see no point in proceeding with this document until the homenet documents
are in RFC editor Q. Of course, as there are no IANA actions, and it's just a
update to a convention, it could be implemented now)
Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some time back Tony Finch proposed a 2317bis -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00
> which the WG adopted but died for lack of interest.
> It would be useful to revise this document
Thank you for the pointer.
It got enough interest to get adopted... the document looks like it could
just be WGLC'ed. My suggest convention into the ip6.arpa tree could be
combined in, and probably the first-last convention could be also be used.
(and it sounds like Vixie thinks the document should/could go ahead)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
