Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)

[Daniel Roesen <]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:12:02PM +0200, Christian Schild wrote:
> Am Do, den 22.07.2004 schrieb Daniel Roesen um 12:59:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:35:02PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> > > While 9/9/2004 might be optimistic, just as Iljitsch points out, we 
> > > will not have a RFC by then, June 6th 2006 seems to far away for me. 
> > > End of the year or mid 2005 by the latest seems more realistic.
> > 
> > Agreed. The period of coexistence of both trees should be kept as short
> > as possible to avoid confusion and fostering lazyness. Half a year is
> > more than enough to get delegations in ip6.arpa done.
> 
> I think the problem is not populating the new tree, but the resolvers
> that try to query a reverse address. E.g. standard Fedora Core 1 (which
> is not so old) still tries to query in ip6.int. 

So file an complain to Red Hat and get it fixed.

(it is already in Rawhide, see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101261)

BTW, current glibc for FC1 does bitstring.arpa and nibble.int queries.
Current rawhide glibc should do both nibble-style.

> It will take some time to get rid of the "ancient" operating systems and
> as long as they exist, ip6.int. might be necessary.

So what. Those OSses had how many years to get it right? If one wants
working v6 reverse, use working software.


Regards,
Daniel