Re: [DNSOP] AS112/local zones documents published -- and next steps

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 14 July 2011 17:53 UTC

Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20110714160249.GC29765@x27.adm.denic.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:53:36 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FB4B3E98-26E8-4B95-89F1-1D2BB79003F6@hopcount.ca>
References: <20110714160249.GC29765@x27.adm.denic.de>
To: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] AS112/local zones documents published -- and next steps
Precedence: list

On 2011-07-14, at 12:02, Peter Koch wrote:

> With the trilogy published, there is new work in front of us.  Stephen and
> me have reserved space on the Quebec agenda for a closer look at
> 
>        <draft-michaelson-as112-ipv6-00.txt>

So, it seems to me that there are various aspects to consider in the general area of extending the AS112 project for IPv6. These include:

 (a) IPv6 transport for AS112 nameservers (some work is already being done on this)
 (b) Inclusion of IPv6-related RFC6303-style zones on AS112 servers

The open issues on ggm's draft I think include:

 (1) whether this is the right draft to document (a) above
 (2) whether the list of zones specified is complete and accurate

In addition to these process questions there are some improvements that I could think be made to the IANA Considerations section, but those are largely editorial and non-substantive in this context.

(b) and (2) above also prompt the question of how we (more generally) might manage the zones served by AS112 nodes, given that there is only loose coordination between AS112 node operators and potentially a significant deployment of (globally) invisible AS112 nodes which serve captive audiences (enterprises, ISPs own customers, etc). There is a risk, depending on the update mechanism, that additional zones delegated to the existing AS112 servers might be lame on a significant number of servers, and the impact of that lameness ought to be assessed.

>        <draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull-00.txt>

wfm's draft (above) contains an analogous proposal to (b) above, but for various new v4-related reverse zones.

In addition we now have a registry of locally-served zones, per RFC6303, and we might consider mechanisms to update AS112 nodes from that registry (or constrain the procedures for updating that registry also to consider AS112 support for the zones, as they are added).

Finally, Stuart Cheshire's draft draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01 proposes the creation of a registry of special-use names, and draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-14 requests that that the IANA reserves other domains such as ".local" and "254.169.in-addr.arpa" which (like the zones currently delegated to the AS112 servers) have only local significance.

It feels like there's an opportunity here to align these various registries and knit in some process relating to the AS112 project. What exists right now, together with what is proposed to exist, is a little messy.

Joe

[DNSOP] AS112/local zones documents published -- … Peter Koch
Re: [DNSOP] AS112/local zones documents published… Joe Abley
Re: [DNSOP] AS112/local zones documents published… Phil Regnauld