[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[6bone] Fwd: BCP 80, RFC 3681 on Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA
- Subject: [6bone] Fwd: BCP 80, RFC 3681 on Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA
- From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar)
- Date: Wed Jan 21 04:29:19 2004
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Gert Doering [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:08:42PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > Can we start setting a phase-out date on ip6.int too ?
> > Eg 6/6/2004, that way vendors *will* see where ip6.arpa isn't
> > used yet.
> I'd say this is too early (6/6/05 would be fine, though).
> There are LOTS of implementations out there that will break (FreeBSDs
> up to 4.8 or so, all Cisco IPv6 implementations, etc.), so a bit more
> of a warning would be nice.
It should have happened 2 years ago already.
And when you are experimenting with IPv6 one is already running
the newest-of-the-newest, I thus sincerely hope that these people
know how and that they need to upgrade their software to avoid
the many exploits that are out there. Next to that the people
that don't know about ip6.arpa probably don't read any of the
mailing lists either thus will it really matter if it breaks
today or tomorrow because ip6.int is gone?
I do understand the problem with cisco's btw as good working
IOS's that fit into the smallish routers will be a problem.
Then again how much reverse resolving is required on such
a machine? It was intended to route, not shell ;)
Maybe 12/12/2004 would be a good date?
Then people have ~11 months to upgrade.
> > For people moving over in the next couple of weeks, one
> > can employ a DNAME, eg:
> That's a nice one indeed, yes. But only if you have BIND9, correct?
According to some googling even bind8 supports DNAME.
Between DNS servers it should not pose a problem ofcourse.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----