From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Dec 1 21:03:59 2010 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:03:59 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 Nov 2010, at 21:31, Chris Thompson wrote: > I don't know whether this is the most appropriate forum to raise > this issue --- but if RIRs can be persuaded to support the alternate > form of reverse zone delegation suggested here, perhaps other > authorities would do the same. It is. You could write this up as a policy proposal if the WG likes your idea. So far, the silence has been deafening. Perhaps you could expand on your original posting and see if that provokes some discussion? From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Dec 1 21:27:05 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:27:05 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Jim Reid wrote: > On 29 Nov 2010, at 21:31, Chris Thompson wrote: > >> I don't know whether this is the most appropriate forum to raise >> this issue --- but if RIRs can be persuaded to support the alternate >> form of reverse zone delegation suggested here, perhaps other >> authorities would do the same. > > > It is. You could write this up as a policy proposal if the WG likes > your idea. So far, the silence has been deafening. > > Perhaps you could expand on your original posting and see if that > provokes some discussion? I'm quite illiterate when it comes to DNS :-) but I read the proposal and the idea. What I fail to seeat 1st glance is where the RIR and the PDP comes in? Wilfried. From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Dec 1 21:57:59 2010 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:57:59 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <39A5515E-5775-4DAC-A7D1-129DCF054969@rfc1035.com> On 1 Dec 2010, at 20:27, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > What I fail to see at 1st glance is where the RIR and the PDP comes > in? What Chris is proposing is a different way of dealing with reverse lookups in the DNS. If the idea gets support, this could have implications for the NCC. The WG might decide "We like DNAMEs in the reverse tree. NCC please implement that in your bits of in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa. Or make it an option. Here's the policy goop to support this request. Oh and maybe that policy goop could/should be hawked around the other RIRs too.". And maybe this idea touches on DB if a DNAME object needs to be created to make the scheme fly for the reverse zones NCC manages. If that's the case, I expect there would need to be some policy done somewhere. A policy emerging from the DNS WG would be a novelty. :-) Please note the extensive qualifiers with should and maybes. I was/am getting ahead of myself. The meta-logic here is if the idea has merit and if the WG supports it, a policy proposal might be needed so that the NCC could implement it. That's all. I originally mentioned the idea of a policy proposal in the hope it would provoke a discussion and maybe wake up the WG. Well, we are having a discussion, but not about the DNAME idea. :-( At least, not yet... The time for invoking the PDP is some way off (if at all). Let's first establish if anyone in the WG cares about the idea. I'm disappointed there has been no reaction yet. From bmanning at isi.edu Wed Dec 1 23:23:10 2010 From: bmanning at isi.edu (bill manning) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:23:10 -0800 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <39A5515E-5775-4DAC-A7D1-129DCF054969@rfc1035.com> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <39A5515E-5775-4DAC-A7D1-129DCF054969@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <55141E83-C4EF-41B3-A8A4-F2039CFB3ABD@isi.edu> hum... instead of dlegation-only, you could have a dname-only zone... :) certainly argues for less centralization ... --bill On 1December2010Wednesday, at 12:57, Jim Reid wrote: > On 1 Dec 2010, at 20:27, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >> What I fail to see at 1st glance is where the RIR and the PDP comes in? > > What Chris is proposing is a different way of dealing with reverse lookups in the DNS. If the idea gets support, this could have implications for the NCC. The WG might decide "We like DNAMEs in the reverse tree. NCC please implement that in your bits of in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa. Or make it an option. Here's the policy goop to support this request. Oh and maybe that policy goop could/should be hawked around the other RIRs too.". > > And maybe this idea touches on DB if a DNAME object needs to be created to make the scheme fly for the reverse zones NCC manages. If that's the case, I expect there would need to be some policy done somewhere. A policy emerging from the DNS WG would be a novelty. :-) > > Please note the extensive qualifiers with should and maybes. I was/am getting ahead of myself. The meta-logic here is if the idea has merit and if the WG supports it, a policy proposal might be needed so that the NCC could implement it. That's all. > > I originally mentioned the idea of a policy proposal in the hope it would provoke a discussion and maybe wake up the WG. Well, we are having a discussion, but not about the DNAME idea. :-( At least, not yet... The time for invoking the PDP is some way off (if at all). Let's first establish if anyone in the WG cares about the idea. I'm disappointed there has been no reaction yet. From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Dec 1 23:38:54 2010 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:38:54 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> On 01/12/10 20:27, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > What I fail to see at 1st glance is where the RIR and the PDP comes in? Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. It's a truly nifty idea, IMNSHO. My employer's LIR has found no objection to this approach. Neither has the tunnel broker for my domestic IPv6 connectivity. For example: dig -x 2001:770:13f:1:: dig -x 2001:770:98:200::35:1 Unfortunately, I didn't have the DNAME option whenever I had to set up reverse DNS for a /19 and a /20 in IPv4 as 48 /24's. Now, since this isn't broken, I'm not minded to fix it. /Niall From ololocc at entratek.com Thu Dec 2 05:53:44 2010 From: ololocc at entratek.com (ololocc at entratek.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 04:53:44 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at><4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <375635251-1291265626-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-635964714-@bda674.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Moderator, Please kindly unsubscribe my email from the group list. Thank you. Cc_ololo at yahoo.com C. C. Ololo Principal Entratek Systems LLC 9319 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75243 USA -----Original Message----- From: Niall O'Reilly Sender: dns-wg-admin at ripe.net Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:38:54 To: Cc: Subject: Re: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs On 01/12/10 20:27, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > What I fail to see at 1st glance is where the RIR and the PDP comes in? Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. It's a truly nifty idea, IMNSHO. My employer's LIR has found no objection to this approach. Neither has the tunnel broker for my domestic IPv6 connectivity. For example: dig -x 2001:770:13f:1:: dig -x 2001:770:98:200::35:1 Unfortunately, I didn't have the DNAME option whenever I had to set up reverse DNS for a /19 and a /20 in IPv4 as 48 /24's. Now, since this isn't broken, I'm not minded to fix it. /Niall From dot at dotat.at Thu Dec 2 14:35:35 2010 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:35:35 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting > sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. What about legacy allocations where the DNAME needs to be placed in a reverse zone maintained by RIPE? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD. From fweimer at bfk.de Thu Dec 2 15:02:00 2010 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:02:00 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: (Tony Finch's message of "Thu\, 2 Dec 2010 13\:35\:35 +0000") References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <8239qgxoh3.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Tony Finch: > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> >> Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting >> sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. > > What about legacy allocations where the DNAME needs to be placed in a > reverse zone maintained by RIPE? I don't think such a case actually exists. Could you be more specific? -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From dot at dotat.at Thu Dec 2 15:34:10 2010 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:34:10 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <8239qgxoh3.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> <8239qgxoh3.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Tony Finch: > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >> > >> Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting > >> sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. > > > > What about legacy allocations where the DNAME needs to be placed in a > > reverse zone maintained by RIPE? > > I don't think such a case actually exists. Could you be more > specific? Ah, now I look they seem to be ARIN's zones. (Our allocations include 128.232, 129.169, and 131.111.) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD. From fweimer at bfk.de Thu Dec 2 15:38:22 2010 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:38:22 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: (Tony Finch's message of "Thu\, 2 Dec 2010 14\:34\:10 +0000") References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> <8239qgxoh3.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <82vd3cw881.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Tony Finch: > On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Tony Finch: >> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> >> >> >> Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting >> >> sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. >> > >> > What about legacy allocations where the DNAME needs to be placed in a >> > reverse zone maintained by RIPE? >> >> I don't think such a case actually exists. Could you be more >> specific? > > Ah, now I look they seem to be ARIN's zones. (Our allocations include > 128.232, 129.169, and 131.111.) It should still work. In the parent, you'd have: 169.129.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns1.example.net. 169.129.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns2.example.net. And ns*.example.net. would serve 169.129.in-addr.arpa. IN DNAME reverse.example.com. This scheme breaks down when you delegate individual /32s because DNAME does not apply to the name itself, only its children. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From dot at dotat.at Thu Dec 2 15:41:38 2010 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:41:38 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: <82vd3cw881.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> <8239qgxoh3.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <82vd3cw881.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: > > It should still work. In the parent, you'd have: > > 169.129.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns1.example.net. > 169.129.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns2.example.net. > > And ns*.example.net. would serve > > 169.129.in-addr.arpa. IN DNAME reverse.example.com. The point is to put the DNAME in the parent zone to save the effort of maintaining the delegated zone, i.e. all the stuff you have to do even if the zone is nearly empty. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD. From pk at DENIC.DE Thu Dec 2 18:05:31 2010 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:05:31 +0100 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101202170531.GA30823@unknown.office.denic.de> Chris, > Locally we have been using a scheme to map such reverse lookups into > a single common zone, described at > > http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/cet1/prune-reverse-zones > > To take full advantage of this, however, requires promoting DNAMEs > into the parent reverse zone. for this particular list it might be advised to focus the discussion on the reverse mapping case (for both v4, still, and v6). Not sure I understand what the implicit problem statement is, but it seems there are two stages: 1) You want to maintain zone data in only one place "first derivative", changes to zone data 2) You also want to set up as few zones as possible "second derivative", changes to zone meta data The proposal/suggestion/hack linked above optimizes all this for a subset of scenarios and all towards the provisioning side. Can it be done? Sure. Would it scale, i.e., what would be the effects if 10%, 50% or 90% of the reverse zones would be replaced by this? I have no idea. Should it be recommended? Probably premature to ask pending understanding of the side effects. Just some questions to chew on, in no particular order and without being exhaustive: o (How) would this work with the parent zone determination for DNS Dynamic Updates? o Would this impose more or less load on the "parents'" name servers? o What would be the scaling effects on (validating) resolvers? o Is the maintenance of multiple zones, including data maintenance and infrastructure maintenance (setting up, checking and changing slaves) really an operational issue of significance? o Will this become better or worse for IPv6 reverse? o To what extent are today's tools, scripts, IPAM solutions _not_ solving the task? o What are the side effects of putting all PTRs in one basket^Wzone? > As DNAMEs do not redirect the name itself, there would be a problem > for reverse zones containing significant records at the apex, e.g. > PTR records pointing to a gateway host. (I think that practice, > recommended in RFC 1033, has pretty much fallen into disuse.) If the That's probably section 3.3 of RFC1101. Not widely used since CIDR times. There's little to find except meta data at the apex of most v4 reverse zones and that should also be true for v6. -Peter {no hat} From cet1 at cam.ac.uk Thu Dec 2 20:22:21 2010 From: cet1 at cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson) Date: 02 Dec 2010 19:22:21 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs In-Reply-To: References: <4CF6AF99.6090601@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CF6CE7E.7000307@ucd.ie> <8239qgxoh3.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: On Dec 2 2010, Tony Finch wrote: >On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Tony Finch: >> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> >> >> >> Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting >> >> sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs. >> > >> > What about legacy allocations where the DNAME needs to be placed in a >> > reverse zone maintained by RIPE? >> >> I don't think such a case actually exists. Could you be more >> specific? > >Ah, now I look they seem to be ARIN's zones. (Our allocations include >128.232, 129.169, and 131.111.) It's actually rather less likely that we would want to use the scheme for those large reverse zones. We also have 192.152.213/24 and 192.84.5/24 (which are also ERX and ARIN-hosted) for which it would be useful - but that's only two zones, not really worth worrying about. Locally, I have my eye on the several 193.60.x/24 zones we have delegated from JANET. (193.60/16 is delegated to JANET by RIPE.) So why didn't I start off by raising this in a JANET context rather than a RIPE one? Let's just say that I thought here a better place to get useful technical input... -- Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1 at ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. From andrei at ripe.net Tue Dec 7 14:29:04 2010 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:29:04 +0100 Subject: [dns-wg] Fwd: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root Message-ID: <4CFE36A0.9070800@ripe.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:26:57 +0100 From: IAB Chair To: IETF Announcement list Dear Colleagues, The ARPA DS RRset has been published in the root zone as of serial number 2010120601. This allows signed reverse address RRsets to be validated by DNSSEC aware recursive name servers that have the root configured as their trust-anchor. --Olaf Kolkman IAB Chair ----------------------------------- The Internet Architecture Board www.iab.org iab-chair at iab.org _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From Brett.Carr at nominet.org.uk Tue Dec 7 15:51:40 2010 From: Brett.Carr at nominet.org.uk (Brett Carr) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:51:40 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Fwd: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root In-Reply-To: <4CFE36A0.9070800@ripe.net> References: <4CFE36A0.9070800@ripe.net> Message-ID: <71969C3CA9874C4EA9CF6ED8477293860AC2888C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Andrei, this is good news, congratulations to all who made this happen. As a matter of interest do you/Anand have any idea on how many signed delegations there are now in the RIPE maintained reverse zones? Brett ________________________________________ From: dns-wg-admin at ripe.net [dns-wg-admin at ripe.net] on behalf of Andrei Robachevsky [andrei at ripe.net] Sent: 07 December 2010 13:29 To: dns-wg at ripe.net Subject: [dns-wg] Fwd: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:26:57 +0100 From: IAB Chair To: IETF Announcement list Dear Colleagues, The ARPA DS RRset has been published in the root zone as of serial number 2010120601. This allows signed reverse address RRsets to be validated by DNSSEC aware recursive name servers that have the root configured as their trust-anchor. --Olaf Kolkman IAB Chair ----------------------------------- The Internet Architecture Board www.iab.org iab-chair at iab.org _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From wnagele at ripe.net Tue Dec 7 16:31:31 2010 From: wnagele at ripe.net (Wolfgang Nagele) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:31:31 -0500 Subject: [dns-wg] Fwd: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root In-Reply-To: <71969C3CA9874C4EA9CF6ED8477293860AC2888C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4CFE36A0.9070800@ripe.net> <71969C3CA9874C4EA9CF6ED8477293860AC2888C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <4CFE5353.3060406@ripe.net> Hi Brett, > As a matter of interest do you/Anand have any idea on how many signed delegations there are now in the RIPE maintained reverse zones? As of now: *.in-addr.arpa. = 473 *.ip6.arpa. = 44 e164.arpa. = 5 Regards, Wolfgang From sara.monteiro at fccn.pt Tue Dec 7 20:32:17 2010 From: sara.monteiro at fccn.pt (Sara Monteiro) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:32:17 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Fwd: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root In-Reply-To: <4CFE5353.3060406@ripe.net> References: <4CFE36A0.9070800@ripe.net> <71969C3CA9874C4EA9CF6ED8477293860AC2888C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <4CFE5353.3060406@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4CFE8BC1.3070803@fccn.pt> Hi, I notice that there's no DS record for the in-addr.arpa. zone in the arpa. zone, can someone tell me when it's expected for the DS to be submited? Thank you very much, Sara Monteiro Wolfgang Nagele wrote, On 07-12-2010 15:31: > Hi Brett, > >> As a matter of interest do you/Anand have any idea on how many signed delegations there are now in the RIPE maintained reverse zones? > As of now: > *.in-addr.arpa. = 473 > *.ip6.arpa. = 44 > e164.arpa. = 5 > > Regards, > Wolfgang > From dave at knig.ht Tue Dec 7 22:16:34 2010 From: dave at knig.ht (Dave Knight) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:16:34 -0500 Subject: [dns-wg] Fwd: FYI: ARPA DS record in the root In-Reply-To: <4CFE8BC1.3070803@fccn.pt> References: <4CFE36A0.9070800@ripe.net> <71969C3CA9874C4EA9CF6ED8477293860AC2888C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <4CFE5353.3060406@ripe.net> <4CFE8BC1.3070803@fccn.pt> Message-ID: Sara, The IN-ADDR.ARPA zone is not yet signed. There is an effort underway to migrate the zone to a new set of authority servers operated by the RIRs and ICANN. Following the completion of that work ICANN will sign the zone and follow the usual procedure for the inclusion of a DS RRSet in the ARPA zone. We expect the migration work to complete in Q1 2011. A more detailed timeline for signing IN-ADDR.ARPA will be published nearer the time. Dave On 2010-12-07, at 2:32 PM, Sara Monteiro wrote: > Hi, > > I notice that there's no DS record for the in-addr.arpa. zone in the > arpa. zone, can someone tell me when it's expected for the DS to be > submited? > > Thank you very much, > Sara Monteiro > > > Wolfgang Nagele wrote, On 07-12-2010 15:31: >> Hi Brett, >> >>> As a matter of interest do you/Anand have any idea on how many signed delegations there are now in the RIPE maintained reverse zones? >> As of now: >> *.in-addr.arpa. = 473 >> *.ip6.arpa. = 44 >> e164.arpa. = 5 >> >> Regards, >> Wolfgang >> > From denis at ripe.net Thu Dec 9 14:00:08 2010 From: denis at ripe.net (Denis Walker) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:00:08 +0100 Subject: [dns-wg] Changes to Reverse DNS DOMAIN Objects in the RIPE Database Message-ID: <4D00D2D8.6030102@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear colleagues, It was agreed at RIPE 59 in Lisbon that reverse DNS zones in the RIPE Database should not have child objects. Documentation relating to this decision and the discussion surrounding it can be found in the minutes of the RIPE 59 DNS and Database Working Groups: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/r59-minutes.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/db/minutes/ripe-59.html The RIPE NCC is now ready to deploy this change and clean-up the existing data. This will be done in the week commencing 13 December 2010. After deployment it will not be possible to create a reverse DNS DOMAIN object in the RIPE Database if either a more or less specific object already exists. During the data clean-up you may receive a notification that your DOMAIN object has been deleted. If this is the case there will be a less specific DOMAIN object in the database. Your object was only for documentation purposes and did not have any effect on reverse DNS. If you have any questions please contact us at . Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Group