Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc comment regarding AS112
"William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> Thu, 28 July 2011 16:31 UTC
Return-Path: <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
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 0D06F21F8C1E for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:31:31 -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=[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 Y5VBTFL5-cB0 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:31:30 -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 3AE3F21F8B1A for <mboned@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:31:25 -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 p6SGVGvp005245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:21 -0400
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p6SGVFZ5005242; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:16 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:15 -0400
From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E317FFA.9000801@venaas.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107281215240.27844@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107280717230.27844@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <4E317FFA.9000801@venaas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
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
Reply-To: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:31:31 -0000
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). 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