On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
> > agreed. but the pain is minimal. note that, initially, the content of
> > ip6.arpa is directly that of ip6.int. in fact, one could have the same
> > zone file pointed to by both names. the big pain in the transition is
> > that of the registries, w
> As for the registry side transition, I have another question. I saw
> delegations for 2001:0200::/24 to APNIC. What is the current status
> about 3ffe::/16? Is there a plan to delegate ip6.arpa. sub domains
> for that block?
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
I don't know whom the appropriate people are, but as the
administrator of the existing ipv6 delegations other than
the RIR ones, I would have hoped to have been included in
the process. This is the first I've heard of such a meeting.
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:
CTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> &
ROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)>
> To: "Randy Bush"
- Original Message -
From: )>
To: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?
>
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:31:39 -0800,
> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> agreed. but the pain is minimal. note that, initially, the content of
> ip6.arpa is directly that of ip6.int. in fact, one could have the same
> zone file pointed to by both names. the big pain in the tran
- Original Message -
From: )>
To: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.?
>
At 01:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
>So, while I still don't think the migration overhead is minimal, it
>seems to me that all I have to do now is to implement new resolver
>code, deploy it, and start operation with ip6.arpa. If the migrati
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:31:39 -0800,
> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Anyway, through the responses so far, I feel we must definitely move
>> to ip6.arpa. (regardless of the bitstring vs nibble issue). The
>> migration should cause additional pain to deploy IPv6, but, with the
> Let me confirm, do you mean the bitstring vs nibble format by the
> "proven format", or does it include the upper domain (i.e. ip6.int. vs
> ip6.arpa.)?
the two issues are entirely orthogonal. one can have any type of RR in any
zone. e.g. it is only the external semantics which says that an M
11 matches
Mail list logo
