keeping Aggregatable registry
davidk@ISI.EDU
davidk@ISI.EDU
Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Bob,
Bob Fink writes:
>
> Your question on format is a good one. David Kessens might suggest one as
> he has said he can help provide the service using his 6bone registry.
There are a couple of ways to do this:
- The DNS reverse zone might be a good place to put this data
- The 6bone registry can be used
The 6bone registries already has most (if not all) of the support
needed. There are two possibilities for doing this:
We use the ipv6-site object which contains the 'prefix:' attribute
which can be used to document the used prefixes. Currently everybody
can just choose there own prefixes, but I can build in support that one
needs approval first of the address space manager (SLA level n-1) to
*create* such a prefix: attribute. It would be needed that the SLA
manager at level n would also need an 'ipv6-site:' object.
However, a cleaner solution is separating the notion of objects that
describe which addresses *may* be used by somebody and keep the site
objects for describing which address space is actually being routed and
how. This is in fact how it is currently being done for IPv4 address
space. IPv4 registries have information who can use what (InterNIC,
RIPE, APNIC) and routing registries (RA, MCI, RIPE, CANET, ANS) have
information on what is actually using what, where and how. This
solution would reflect reality better, but might be viewed too
complicated.
The current software already has support for both type of objects, the
'ipv6-site:' objects are the routing registry type of objects and the
'inet6num:' objects for describing allocations/assignments of address
space. I haven't made the 'inet6num:' public yet since we never had a
need for it. Below follows a formal description:
inet6num: [mandatory] [single] IPv6 prefix
netname: [mandatory] [single] name of the TLA/SLA
descr: [mandatory] [multiple] description of TLA/SLA
country: [mandatory] [multiple] space separated list of ISO
country codes
admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] NIC handle for administrative contact
tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] NIC handle for technical contact
rev-srv: [optional] [multiple] nameserver for reverse domain,
could be used by Bill or others
to build the reverse zone!
remarks: [optional] [multiple] same as in ipv6-site objects
notify: [optional] [multiple] E-mail address
gets notification message when
somebody changes the object
mnt-by: [optional] [multiple] pointer to maintainer object
which describes who can update
the object, everybody can do updates
if you don't use this, however you
can use the 'notify:' attribute to
make sure you know about the fact.
mnt-lower: [optional] [multiple] pointer to maintainer object
which describes who is allowed
to *create* objects for SLAs
part of the 'inet6num:' object
changed: [mandatory] [multiple] same as in ipv6-site objects
source: [mandatory] [single] equal to 6BONE
We could start with creating the following objects:
inet6num: 0::/0
netname: The Mother of All Address Space
...
mnt-by: IANA
mnt-lower: IANA
inet6num: 3FFE:0::/16
netname: TestAddressSpace
...
mnt-by: BobFink-MNT
mnt-lower: BobFink-MNT
inet6num: 3FFE:0::/24
netname: INNER-TLA0
...
mnt-by: INNER-TLA0-MNT
mnt-lower: INNER-TLA0-MNT
inet6num: 3FFE:0::/32
netname: CustomerINNER-TLA0-SLA0
...
mnt-by: CustomerINNER-TLA0-SLA0-MNT
mnt-lower: CustomerINNER-TLA0-SLA0-MNT
and so on ...
> Myself, I'm doing the dumb and simple 'keep a text list' approach, see:
>
> http://www.6bone.net/6bone_pTLA_list.html
>
> My guess is that not everyone will want to use either the 6bone registry
> (in a RIPE-style format) or a simple text list, so maybe having both is a
> good idea.
It always make sense to keep such a short simple and authoritative list
to check who is right in case of conflicts that might but should not
happen.
Please let me know what your view is, as the best thing to do,
David K.
---