[6bone] Re: DNS support for IPv6

[Aaron J. Angel]

On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 00:30, Xavier Roche wrote:
> >> You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved,
> >> cite the RFC that explains why :)
> >>Which one would that be?  I can't find any particular RFC, or actual
> 
> This one:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2474.txt?number=2474

That's definitely not it...

> And its update: (August 2002)
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3364.txt?number=3364

But this was a rather interesting read.

> See "Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of AAAA" and "Potential Problems with A6" sections."

See also Less "Compelling Arguments in Favor of A6" and the Main
Advantages sections.

>    Recommendations based on these questions:
> 
>    (1) If the IPv6 working groups seriously intend to specify and deploy
>        rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing, we should transition to
>        using the A6 RR in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs as
>        necessary in the reverse tree.

Agreed, given number (3).

>    (3) In either case, the reverse tree should use the textual
>        representation described in [RFC1886] rather than the bit label
>        representation described in [RFC2874].