Subject: Re: draft-itojun-ipv6-nodeinfo-revlookup-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 06:09:06 +0900

>> On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 02:03 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> ><grin> That would give very interresting results indeed, so let's add
>> >the fact
>> >that it for example BIND have to be configged for such a delegation
>> >like:
>> >zone "4.2.0.0.0.0.2.4.1.1.8.e.f.f.3.ip6.int" {
>> >        type ipv6nodeinfo;
>> >        allow_names "*.unfix.org";
>> >	  check_forward yes;
>> >};

	i specifically mentioned in the draft (and presentation) that querier
	should be the node itself, as view of scope zone is different
	between them, and there's no way to pass scope zone info over
	DNS protocol (or identifying scopes).

	above example is OK as it is for global addresses, but for site-locals
	and link-locals, above approach (named translates DNS query into
	ICMPv6 node info query) does not work.

	minor implementation problem - non-privileged programs cannot generate
	ICMPv6.  so we need:
	- a root-privileged daemon that sends ICMPv6 node info query,
	- communication channel from libc resolver to the daemon which does
	  not lose scope info (DNS wire format doesn't work).  unix domain
	  socket, shared memory, whatever.
	current KAME revlookupd is problematical with respect to the latter
	bullet.  http://www.kame.net/kame/kame/kame/revlookupd

itojun

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:53:10 -0700

> Regardless, I like ICMP node lookup.  Information is good.  Being
> able to provide information is good.

Yup.   I think having the mechanism is great.

What do people think of signing the ICMP packet with the private key that 
corresponds to a KEY RR that is attached to the name mentioned in the ICMP 
packet?