draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-02.txt 
DNSEXT Working Group Randy Bush (ed.) DNSEXT Working Group Randy Bush (ed.)
Alain Durand (ed.) Alain Durand (ed.)
Bob Fink (ed.) Bob Fink (ed.)
Olafur Gudmundsson (ed.) Olafur Gudmundsson (ed.)
Tony Hain (ed.) Tony Hain (ed.)
<draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt> <draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-02.txt>
Updates: RFC 1886, RFC 2673, RFC 2874 Updates: RFC 1886, RFC 2673, RFC 2874
Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS. Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSEXT WG mailing list Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSEXT WG mailing list
namedroppers@ops.ietf.org namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
This draft expires on September 1, 2002. This draft expires on December 31, 2002.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All rights reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All rights reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document clarifies and updates the standards status of RFCs that This document clarifies and updates the standards status of RFCs that
define direct and reverse map of IPv6 addresses in DNS. This document define direct and reverse map of IPv6 addresses in DNS. This document
moves the A6 and Bit label specifications to experimental status. moves the A6 and Bit label specifications to experimental status.
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
The IETF had begun the process of standardizing two different address The IETF had begun the process of standardizing two different address
formats for IPv6 addresses AAAA[RFC1886] and A6[RFC2874] and both are formats for IPv6 addresses AAAA[RFC1886] and A6[RFC2874] and both are
at proposed standard. This had led to confusion and conflicts on at proposed standard. This had led to confusion and conflicts on
which one to deploy. It is important for deployment that any which one to deploy. It is important for deployment that any
confusion in this area be cleared up, as there is a feeling in the confusion in this area be cleared up, as there is a feeling in the
community that having more than one choice will lead to delays in the community that having more than one choice will lead to delays in the
deployment of IPv6. The goal of this document is to clarify the deployment of IPv6. The goal of this document is to clarify the
situation. situation.
This document also discusses issues relating to the usage of Binary
Labels [RFC 2673] to support the reverse mapping of IPv6 addresses.
This document is based on extensive technical discussion on various This document is based on extensive technical discussion on various
relevant working groups mailing lists and a joint DNSEXT and NGTRANS relevant working groups mailing lists and a joint DNSEXT and NGTRANS
meeting at the 51st IETF in August 2001. This document attempts to meeting at the 51st IETF in August 2001. This document attempts to
capture the sense of the discussions and reflect them in this capture the sense of the discussions and reflect them in this
document to represent the consensus of the community. document to represent the consensus of the community.
The main arguments and the issues are covered in a separate The main arguments and the issues are covered in a separate
document[Tradeoff] that reflects the current understanding of the document[Tradeoff] that reflects the current understanding of the
issues. This document summarizes the outcome of these discussions. issues. This document summarizes the outcome of these discussions.
skipping to change at page 4, line 35 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
be used in the DNS reverse tree. be used in the DNS reverse tree.
3.2 Recommended standard action 3.2 Recommended standard action
RFC 2673 standard status is to be changed from Proposed to RFC 2673 standard status is to be changed from Proposed to
Experimental. Future standardization of these documents is to be done Experimental. Future standardization of these documents is to be done
by the DNSEXT working group or its successor. by the DNSEXT working group or its successor.
4 DNAME in IPv6 reverse tree 4 DNAME in IPv6 reverse tree
The issues for DNAME chaining in the reverse tree are substantially The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
identical to the issues for A6 chaining in the forward tree. closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental, the intent of this one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree be deprecated. other isn't either. Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
tree be deprecated.
5 Acknowledgments 5 Acknowledgments
This document is based on input from many members of the various IETF This document is based on input from many members of the various IETF
working groups involved in this issues. Special thanks go to the working groups involved in this issues. Special thanks go to the
people that prepared reading material for the joint DNSEXT and people that prepared reading material for the joint DNSEXT and
NGTRANS working group meeting at the 51st IETF in London, Rob NGTRANS working group meeting at the 51st IETF in London, Rob
Austein, Dan Bernstein, Matt Crawford, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, Austein, Dan Bernstein, Matt Crawford, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino,
Christian Huitema. Number of other people have made number of Christian Huitema. Number of other people have made number of
comments on mailing lists about this issue including Andrew W. comments on mailing lists about this issue including Andrew W.
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
security considerations. There is an indirect security impact of the security considerations. There is an indirect security impact of the
choice, in that the relationship between A6 and DNSSEC is not well choice, in that the relationship between A6 and DNSSEC is not well
understood throughout the community, while the choice of AAAA does understood throughout the community, while the choice of AAAA does
leads to a model for use of DNSSEC in IPv6 networks which parallels leads to a model for use of DNSSEC in IPv6 networks which parallels
current IPv4 practice. current IPv4 practice.
7 - IANA Considerations: 7 - IANA Considerations:
None. None.
References: Normative References:
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification'' STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. Specification'' STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1886] S. Thompson, C. Huitema, ``DNS Extensions to support IP [RFC1886] S. Thompson, C. Huitema, ``DNS Extensions to support IP
version 6'', RFC 1886, December 1995. version 6'', RFC 1886, December 1995.
[RFC2673] M. Crawford ``Binary Labels in the Domain Name System``, RFC [RFC2673] M. Crawford ``Binary Labels in the Domain Name System``, RFC
2673, August 1999. 2673, August 1999.
[RFC2874] M. Crawford, C. Huitema, ``DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 [RFC2874] M. Crawford, C. Huitema, ``DNS Extensions to Support IPv6
Address Aggregation and Renumbering'', RFC 2874, July 2000. Address Aggregation and Renumbering'', RFC 2874, July 2000.
[RFC3152] R. Bush, ``Delegation of IP6.ARPA'', RFC 3152 also BCP0049, [RFC3152] R. Bush, ``Delegation of IP6.ARPA'', RFC 3152 also BCP0049,
August 2001, August 2001,
Informative References
[Tradeoff] R. Austein, ``Tradeoffs in DNS support for IPv6'', Work in [Tradeoff] R. Austein, ``Tradeoffs in DNS support for IPv6'', Work in
progress, draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-xx.txt, July progress, draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-xx.txt, June
2001. 2002.
Editors Address Editors Address
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Alain Durand <alain.durand@sun.com> Alain Durand <alain.durand@sun.com>
Bob Fink <fink@es.net> Bob Fink <fink@es.net>
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
Tony Hain <hain@tndh.net> Tony Hain <hain@tndh.net>
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/