Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull
"William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> Thu, 04 August 2011 19:49 UTC
Return-Path: <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97C121F8A96 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GOan-foA7Q4d for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca [IPv6:2604:8400:0:127::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4210E21F8A7D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p74Jn7fW025214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:49:12 -0400
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p74Jn5cZ025211; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:49:05 -0400
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:49:05 -0400
From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <7A57E061-CBA4-431C-B2A4-0C148EA44A9C@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1108041545300.27373@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107261343260.5948@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <EC39BC85-FC4B-4800-8805-C871D1525703@apnic.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107272205280.27844@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <7A57E061-CBA4-431C-B2A4-0C148EA44A9C@kumari.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, George Michaelson <ggm+ietf@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:49:06 -0000
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:08 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, George Michaelson wrote: >> >>> I would support this latter approach William: I think we should seek WG adoption of three drafts >>> >>> 1) the michaelson as112-ipv6 draft, aiming for at least one 01 spin to a small set of non-controversial V6 delegations, moving to WGLC and IANA asap. >>> >>> 2) your as112-ipv4-cull draft, but shorn of the operational aspects, likewise rapid movement to WGLC and IANA >> >> For the consideration of members of DNSOP to adopt as a working group item, -01 of my draft has been submitted. >> >>> 3) an AS112 operational draft more in the nature of 6304/5/bis >> >> This one will follow a little later, I suspect more expanded than before. >> >>> I would like to ask for WG adoption of AS112-IPv6 on that basis. >> >> +1, especially since some as112 natives are getting restless. >> > > I made a suggestion at the mic in the f2f meeting, and then on the as112 operators list -- there seems to be some support for it there, so I'm now doing it onlist? > > How about simply making AS112 omniscient (know the answers for *all* space)? As decisions to have AS112 answer / not answer for zones get made, delegations can simply be added and removed. As I said in as112-ops, it's a bold suggestion with which I have no objections to on the surface - haven't yet synthesised (er, sorry) deeper thought over though. But then I'm not a root-server nor .arpa operator. > Obviously this would require synthesizing answers[0], and these servers cannot be used for answering recursive queries (and a few other minor issues) but this will (as far as I can see) solve the lameness / coordination issues... So I wonder if a draft were written suggesting AS112 omniscince, whether the discussion in draft-iab-dns-synthesis-concerns might be worth looking through to include. > > > W > > [0]: Yes, yes i *did* feel dirty writing that?. > > >> Thanks, >> >> wfms >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > > wfms
- [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull bmanning
- Re: [DNSOP] Further observationon AS112 ipv4 cull William F. Maton Sotomayor