[6bone] ip6.arpa ...

[Pim van Pelt]

Andrei, Bill,

| >| The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the
| >| RIRs. Zone information for this space is produced by copying the
| >| existing delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is
| >| done to ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also
| >| authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever
| >| changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone.
| >
| 
| Our goal here is to reduce lameness in the zone. If people feel that the 
| goal of making data in both zones identical overweights, lameness check 
| can be removed.

Bill wrote a 'thank you' when I pointed out that we might be
deliberately creating a different tree in ip6.arpa by eliminating the
lame delegations to those that do not (yet) have a set of servers for
their delegation in the ip6.arpa tree. Naturally, as Andrei states here,
if the community does not wish to see this check, RIPE must not do it
and the net result would be an exact copy of the zone, but then with
ip6.arpa in stead of ip6.int in the RRs.

Nevertheless, I am in favor of the check in the parent tree (even also 
in the ip6.int tree!), because many deployments in the 6BONE are not
resolving properly. I'm interrested in other people's opinion on this
particular issue (lameness check in ip6.arpa tree).
 
| The RIRs have the prototype running. We are happy to start working with 
| Bill regarding the zone transfers. This should not take long as I see no 
| real technical issues here.
I would be happy with this also. I see no problems (at all!) in proceding 
to implement RIPE NCC's proposal.

groet,
Pim
-- 
---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@ipng.nl
http://www.ipng.nl/             IPv6 Deployment
-----------------------------------------------