On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, George Michaelson wrote: > With the RIR delegation being a /32 (or shorter) prefix, there are many > more opportunities for DNS sub-structure, and that could lead endsites > to finding they lack the intermediate delegation to have reverse-DNS in > v6. > > The RIR have had a problem with proposals requiring 'reachover' in the > past: we can't really get control tokens into the hands of non-members, > non-participants in RIR activity if the member/delegate doesn't have > things set up, and so getting the more specific v6 (or v4) reverse > delegated is a problem. > > Still a problem in v4, but more potential in v6 for it to occur.
I don't believe the typical nesting level of v6 delegations increases more than by one at most -- e.g., if an organization obtained a prefix from upstream ISP rather than directly from a LIR. But regardless of whether one considers that an issue, with v4 you may end up having to do classless IN-ADDR delegations. Many providers don't want to get involved with that due to its (perceived or real) complexities compared to delegations at byte boundaries. With v6, basically always the interesting delegation points are at the nibble boundaries, making it easier to create delegations. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
