Hi all, We have two documents proceeding (in wglc) together, both relating to AS112 service:
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname The 6304bis document updates the advice to people running AS112 nodes to incorporate the new scheme described in the as112-dname document, whilst also supporting the current scheme. William has reminded me that there has been some work done amongst current AS112 operators to add an IPv6 prefix to the current scheme, and that some AS112 operators have deployed it. This makes those AS112 nodes capable of receiving queries over both IPv4 and IPv6, and means the AS112 service overall is IPv6-capable. The IPv6 number resources were obtained by DNS-OARC (I presume from ARIN, although I haven't checked). The new scheme, described in as112-dname, already supports both IPv4 and IPv6. We could add advice to AS112 node operators to configure those IPv6 addresses and prefixes to 6304bis. The nameservers PRISONER.IANA.ORG, BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG would need AAAA records added in order for resolvers to use IPv6 transport when querying the AS112 servers. This could be added to the IANA Considerations section in 6304bis. It's possible that the current scheme will be obsoleted by the DNAME approach in the future. This is by no means certain, of course, and we should expect both schemes to be live for some time. Tim, Suz, colleagues -- what would you prefer? Should we add the IPv6 bits to 6304bis in order to codify IPv6 support for the current scheme, or should we leave the current scheme as-is? The authors humbly await your instructions :-) Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
