Subject: [dnsop] comment on reachover in Friday WG meeting

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:53:00 -0800

My comment in the Friday WG meeting on Reachover.

draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-00.txt

so we're looking for this to be technology neutral with respect to v4
and v6. -And there are comments flying around that reverse is 'harder'
in v6.

my first comment was that encouraging delegation was acceptable,
requiring was difficult given independent RIR policy process.

Secondly, that a 'reachover' problem that exists in BOTH v4 and v6 is
possibly worse in v6, because of the risk of longer delegation-chains
between the RIR delegation point, and the /64 endsite. 

With the RIR delegation being a /32 (or shorter) prefix, there are many
more opportunities for DNS sub-structure, and that could lead endsites
to finding they lack the intermediate delegation to have reverse-DNS in
v6.

The RIR have had a problem with proposals requiring 'reachover' in the
past: we can't really get control tokens into the hands of non-members,
non-participants in RIR activity if the member/delegate doesn't have
things set up, and so getting the more specific v6 (or v4) reverse
delegated is a problem. 

Still a problem in v4, but more potential in v6 for it to occur.

That was it.

cheers

-G
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:56:23 +0200 (EET)

> Still a problem in v4, but more potential in v6 for it to occur.

I don't believe the typical nesting level of v6 delegations increases 
more than by one at most -- e.g., if an organization obtained a prefix 
from upstream ISP rather than directly from a LIR.

But regardless of whether one considers that an issue, with v4 you may 
end up having to do classless IN-ADDR delegations.  Many providers 
don't want to get involved with that due to its (perceived or real) 
complexities compared to delegations at byte boundaries.  With v6, 
basically always the interesting delegation points are at the nibble 
boundaries, making it easier to create delegations.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:10:27 +1000

yes, its arguable that there is no automatic extra hierarchy of
entities. so in that case, the hop-over problem is probably neutral
v4:v6.

However, there is a stronger push for provider addressing. Less people
are going to be directly delegated. Hence, if their upstream is
disinterested in reverse-DNS, the RIR are left with the hop-over
problem.

The extra dots/delegation opportunities do indeed make for some
flexibility. So maybe its a nil-nil draw.

-G
.