IPV6 reverse DNS

[Bob Fink]

David,

As this was partially addressed to me I'll make a brief reply. However, for 
a more informative answer, others on the 6bone list will have to respond.

It is the intent for IPv6 hosts/networks to progressively switch to new 
versions of DNS that support A6 and DNAME records, when they are well 
developed, tested and widely available. I don't really know the current 
status of this, nor the answer to your two numbered questions, thus I must 
leave it to others on the list to respond. Let's see what they say.


Bob

At 03:07 PM 9/13/2000 +0100, David Harmelin wrote:
>Please disregard my previous mail, I clearly did not have enough coffee.
>This was fixed, so I will try to reformulate:
>
>1. Do some participants on the 6bone use A6 records (and bind9), in 
>parallel  to (or without defining) AAAA records? RFC2874 predicts that 
>AAAA should be replaced by A6 in the long run.
>
>2. http://www.6bone.net/6bone_reverse_dns.html prones delegation of 
>reverse resolution using NS records, and under the ip6.int tree.
>Bind9 introduces a new way of delegating through DNAMEs. Is anybody out 
>there using it? As far as I can see, it may break queries, if a 
>participant tries to use it, as many servers (or clients) may not 
>understand DNAME answers to a PTR query.
>
>So, if this is the future, wouldnt it make sense that everybody switch 
>progressively to bind9?
>Or do the majority not believe in A6 and DNAME records?
>
>Cheers,
>
>DH.
>___________________________________________________________________
>             * *         David Harmelin          Network Engineer
>           *     *                               DANCERT Representative
>          *              Francis House
>         *               112 Hills Road       Tel +44 1223 302992
>         *               Cambridge CB2 1PQ    Fax +44 1223 303005
>      D  A  N  T  E      United Kingdom       WWW http://www.dante.net
>____________________________________________________________________