Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?

[Jeroen Massar <]

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 09:32, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 20-jul-04, at 18:49, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> 
> > The faster we get cleaned up the .ip6.int vs .ip6.arpa in DNS the 
> > better
> > it is. If we wait until 2006 or do it late this year doesn't matter, it
> > will cause problems anyway.
> 
> > Let's go for 2004 and get things moving just a little bit faster ...
> > people have known about .ip6.arpa for some times so the support should
> > have been there.
> 
> Just curious: why was there a change from ip6.int to ip6.arpa in the 
> first place?

RFC3152:
8<-----------
   The IAB recommended that the ARPA top level domain (the name is now
   considered an acronym for "Address and Routing Parameters Area") be
   used for technical infrastructure sub-domains when possible.  It is
   already in use for IPv4 reverse mapping and has been established as
   the location for E.164 numbering on the Internet [RFC2916 RFC3026].
---------->8

> And I suggest that those who find it hard to support both just go ahead 
> and drop ip6.int themselves and see what problems this causes rather 
> than push for elimination of ip6.int wholesale. In fact, it would 
> probably be a good idea to keep ip6.int around forever. If nobody uses 
> it, there is no harm in it being there. If people still use it, then 
> removing it causes problems.

The problem here is that you can't identify the software easily which is
using the wrong delegation. Also one now needs to support both ip6.int
and ip6.arpa trees, which thus consumes double the resources on your
nameservers. For people without proper DNS management it also requires
double the work. It has been deprecated thus it must go away ;)
Three years is long enough for people to wait already.

But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 and ip6.int is gone
for me.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part