In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?
GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:14:24 -0500,
>>>>>> "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> I'd also like to know the current policy on this. The current status
>>> is really confusing and can be a serious barrier to deploy IPv6.
>>>
>>> Honestly, if we are allowed to live with the current spec
>>> (i.e. ip6.int. with the nibble format), I'll be really happy.
>>> However, the transition to ip6.arpa is inevitable, we should be ready
>>> for this as soon as possible, both in operation and in implementation.
>
>> See RFC 3152, aka BCP 49.
>
>I should have been clearer in the previous message...I know the RFC,
>so my question is
>
> does the RFC force us to obsolete ip6.arpa and migrate to ip6.arpa.?
> and
> is this the only way to go?
>
>I'm not making an objection, I'm just asking. If the answer is yes,
>I'm just okay with it.
Here's the relevant text from the RFC:
>
2. Obsoleted Usage
This document deprecates references to IP6.INT in [RFC1886] section
2.5, [RFC2553] section 6.2.3, [RFC2766] section 4.1, [RFC2772]
section 7.1.c, and [RFC2874] section 2.5.
In this context, 'deprecate' means that the old usage is not
appropriate for new implementations, and IP6.INT will likely be
phased out in an orderly fashion.
So I'd say that the answer to your question is yes, we should move to
ip6.arpa for all new work, and we should convert old systems as best we
can.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
