IPv6 reverse DNS meeting at last IETF

Hi,

I would like to share with you the results of a private discussion
that started at a meeting at the last IETF regarding IPv6 reverse
delegation issues. The group of people was an ad-hoc group which is
worried that the process for moving to ip6.arpa is stagnating.

People involved in the discussion were:

Kurt Erik Lindqvist
David Kessens
Johan Ihren
Andrei Robachevsky
Patrik Faltstrom
Jim Reid

The topic of the meeting was IPv6 reverse DNS. 

We agreed on the following:

- the move to ip6.arpa is not on track

- it's probably best that we start to give attention to this problem
  in the DNS wg to avoid any duplication in efforts.
  
  (BTW this also means that the chairs of the ipv6 wg and DNS wg need
   a meeting schedule that will allow IPv6 wg participants to attend
   the DNS wg - we, Jim Reid & David Kessens, have already made this
   very clear to the RIPE NCC).

- Andrei made it clear that the RIPE NCC wants to move forward with
  a pragmatic approach
  
- we should stop making further delegations in ip6.int (in so far that
  this is within our powers, at the minimum we can recommend this)
  
- we should make it possible that 3ffe address holders can start
  getting reverse delegations in ip6.arpa.
  This is important because it will allow software coders/vendors
  to do look ups in ip6.arpa only instead of doing kludges by looking
  in both or in the wrong one (ip6.int)
  we think this is important to get started as soon as possible since
  software tends to stay alive longer than desirable
  
  Andrei/RIPE NCC was going to ask IAB and/or other powers that be to
  get this moving. We as a community should help if necessary by a
  supporting statement.
  
  (Andrei already sent his request and is working on a proposal for
   implementation)
    
- 6to4 reverse delegation
  
  We discussed this topic briefly as a lesser priority item.
  
  As 6to4 is a transition mechanism for networks that can not get
  native access to v6, we concluded that reverse delegation might not
  be that important for the 6to4 addresses.

  This is clearly a point for more discussion for the DNS wg.

Obviously, this is just the opinion of a small group - your
comments are welcome! Please follow up to the dns-wg list only (unless
you don't agree on moving this topic to the dns-wg in the first
place :-)).

Thanks,

David K.
---