[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Wed Jul 28 13:19:44 CEST 2004
both ip6.arpa and ip6.int --bill > > P.S. Bill - the new initial IPv6 AAA at root for JP and KR are they to > use ipv6.arpa? Thanks. > > /jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6ops at ops.ietf.org > > [mailto:owner-v6ops at ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 5:45 PM > > To: Jeroen Massar > > Cc: Anand Kumria; Rob Blokzijl; v6ops at ops.ietf.org; > > sig-ipv6 at apnic.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: > > 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?) > > > > > > whjile i applaud each and everyone who has expunged > > all ip6.int from their lives, the fact of the matter is that > > IETF fiat or no, there exist -many- systems that can only use > > reverse maps in the ip6.int tree. > > > > it will be maintained as long as there are queries for > > it. for those of you for whom ip6.int is a distant memory, > > pleae understand and respect the fact that you can not, > > despite public posturing, force others to change their > > systems. to practically remove ip6.int incures real cost > > in both time and cash. in the US there is a term for what > > the IETF is trying to do w/ ip6.int. Its called an unfunded > > mandate. Unless or until the good folk in the IETF who are > > calling for the removal of ip6.int are ready to put up the > > cash to effect real change, I wish they would stop. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 09:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2004-07-22, at 09.43, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 > > and ip6.int > > > > > > > is gone for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. > > Maintaining > > > > > > two reverse threes will create more problems than it > > will solve. > > > > > > > > What, specifically, is the hurry? > > > > > > That this has been overdue for three years already and that even > > > though the deprecation was marked in August 2001 some vendors still > > > not have done the change. And as it is a > > s/ip6.int/ip6.arpa/g which is > > > very easy, if vendors did not do that yet they are way > > overdue and you > > > got to wonder how much their interest is in keeping > > software upto date. > > > > > > Basically we (at least me) have been waiting for the 6bone > > to get the > > > delegation so that we could remove the 2 trees and only keep one: > > > ip6.arpa. This was decided by the IAB thus we should live up to it. > > > > > > If we do not remove ip6.int then still implementations > > using it will > > > not show up. They have had 3 years already to update... > > > > > > > > Take your pick: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > > removal-00.html > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > > removal-00.txt > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > > removal-00.xml > > > > > > > > > > Short, quick and easy. > > > > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit > > this as an ID. > > > > > > > > Comments: > > > > e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa was documented in RFC3681 published in February > > > > 2004 and actioned in July 2004. > > > > > > Added, but note that this was all long overdue and there where a > > > number of other solutions that would have worked already 2 > > years ago > > > if there had not been any of the political arguments > > holding back this > > > technical issue. Note also that 6bone will end per 6/6/6 > > and that it is a TESTbed. > > > The TESTbed is delaying and thus hurting the production networks in > > > this case. > > > > > > > I'm assuming the actioning of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is the trigger > > > > for this I-D; if so, why do you want to wait so little time (2 > > > > months) between e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa becoming available and > > > > requiring people to have updated resolver libraries? > > > > > > People should have updated their resolvers in the last *3 years*. > > > If you have not done that already then you are not maintaining your > > > machines properly and there is a big chance that you have bigger > > > problems than a IPv6 reverse DNS that doesn't work anymore because > > > ip6.int is gone. > > > > > > > Personally I'd be more in favour of a 6 month timeout - i.e > > > > around last December or so. > > > > > > Of course the date is up to discussion, but IMHO: ASAP and at least > > > before the end of the year, the sooner the better. > > > > > > Note that Cisco's IOS updates will be done before that date and > > > Windows > > > XP2 will come out in August (they say) thus everybody using > > IPv6 has > > > time enough to upgrade. All "free unix flavors" already support it > > > > > > Also users agree: http://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=general-83948 > > > Note the begin date of that thread, we where really waiting > > for 6bone > > > just as being nice to the people still using it. > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 10:57, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > > > > > > > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit > > this as an ID. > > > > > > > > two minor points. In the abstract and the > > introduction you write: > > > > > > > > RFC 3152 delegates IP6.ARPA for reverse IPv6 > > delegations. For RIRs > > > > (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,LACNIC and soon AFNIC) > > > > > > > > Replace RIPE --> RIPE NCC > > > > > > That I did that wrong is a major oops, I should by know the > > difference by now. > > > > > > > Replace AFNIC --> AFRINIC > > > > > > > > (AFNIC is the .fr registry :-) ) > > > > > > Also adjusted and added some xref's in the XML. > > > > > > Old version is now draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.a > > new version > > > carries the draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00 name. > > > > > > Greets, > > > Jeroen > > > > > > > > > > > > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and > > policy issues * > > > _______________________________________________ > > > sig-ipv6 mailing list > > > sig-ipv6 at lists.apnic.net > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-ipv6 > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]