Re: [dnsop] WGLC for draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-04.txt

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

	While I am happy enough for draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-04.txt
	to proceed it should be pointed out that this is a suboptimal
	solution to the problem.

	1. It requires rapid establishment of a the child zone on
	multiple servers.  There currently is no standardised method
	for doing this.

	2. It does not use DNS itself as the update mechanism.

	A all DNS solution would be to use a DNAME record rather
	an NS RRSet to perform the delegation funtion in the method
	described in RFC 2874.  This remove the need for rapid
	establishment of the child zone as it will already exist
	and be populated.

	A similar level of authentication could be applied to the
	acceptance criteria for UPDATE requests to add DNAMEs.
	i.e. TCP + source address within the delegated block.

	This method was presented to the author several years ago
	but was not listed in the alterative rejected.  It would
	be interesting to know why it was not listed as a alternative
	and as to why it was rejected.

	I do believe that DNAME will be a great aid to renumbering
	in the future despite the flawed logic in RFC 3364 stating
	otherwise.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html