Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment regarding AS112
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Wed, 10 August 2011 20:58 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E735E801A for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pLAO+7luhD8D for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF045E8017 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.12.82] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 275918052; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:59:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E42F126.2050805@venaas.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:59:18 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107280717230.27844@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <4E317FFA.9000801@venaas.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107281215240.27844@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107281215240.27844@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mboned@ietf.org, sa.morris7@googlemail.com, pk@isoc.de
Subject: Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment regarding AS112
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:58:50 -0000
On 7/28/2011 9:31 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Stig Venaas wrote: > >> On 7/28/2011 4:45 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> I have read this document and have just one comment to make in context >>> of AS112 DNS operations: Would it make sense to delegate the reverse map >>> for the addresses specified in section 2 towards the AS112 project? In >>> the past, the unicast addresses for documentation have, of course, been >>> used by end-users and administrators (having personally cringed at >>> seeing this myself behind someone's NAT). The reverse lookups then go on >>> to load the root DNS servers and on it goes. cf RFC 6303 - 6305. >> >> What do you think of getting actual reverse mappings for this? At >> least for IPv4 it could be done. For IPv6 it is slightly more tricky, >> depending on the authoritative DNS servers. Some servers should allow >> a way to do PTR without explicitly having every entry in the zone >> file or memory. > > Hi Stig, > > There have been discussions about this in DNSOP and on the as112-ops > mailing lists. It's possible, I believe, to do so. But this is one of > those instances where we're faced with whether a draft like this should > incorporate the appropriate language to have the delegation done, or if > it should come from DNSOP. BTW, there is another draft waiting for DNSOP > adoption that touches upon delegation of some IPv6 multicast as well as > IPv6 unicast addresses that I'm sure some folks from MBONED may have > already commented on. > > Regarding the entry of every undesirable zone and maintaining those > entries as they come and go, there are two informal proposals: > > - Use DNAME to keep management overhead down (but does this truly relieve > DNS root server load?); > > - Delegate every reverse map not in use, and then peel back from AS112 > those zones formally delegated for legitimate use. > > Or a combination of both. > > It might be good to compare notes with the DNSOP working group co-chairs > to see which way may be best - if you want to incorporate my suggestion > or if they and you feel it may be better to simply do that through an > existing draft waiting to be adopted there (please see > draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as an example). Right, I'm not sure if I want to talk about DNS here. There are other drafts talking about what should be done with reverse DNS for IANA allocations. Both your draft and Peter Koch's draft-ietf-mboned-mcast-arpa-03.txt I basically these should be treated similar to what is decided for other IANA reservations. Stig > > Thanks, > > wfms
- [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment rega… William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment … Stig Venaas
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment … William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment … Stig Venaas