Subject: Re: Use of IP6.INT

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:59:32 -0800

[retransmission, since I haven't seen the first copy appear on the list
since sent, 4 hours ago.  -sd]

At 9:33 AM -0500 1/28/00, Jim Bound wrote:
>You did not address the need in the interim to support IPv6.INT until
>next generation products can use .arpa or whatever.
>
>You say its minimal.  Its not.  We do not want to send out patches with
>our first releases of Ipv6.

Jim,

I thought the proposal on the table was to move only the bitstring
labels to .arpa, and that no one had shipped any code to do bitstrings
yet, and that it really *would* be a trivial change to make before
shipping any code to support bitstring-based reverse lookups.  In which
case, no post-shipping patches would be needed to make this change.
Is any of that incorrect?

>Lets get this straight we are deploying IPv6 and any change that
>affects shipping software is NOT MINIMAL ANYMORE.

Sure, but who has shipped bitstring-based software at this point?

>And don't bullshit us.  The IETF and ITU don't get along and the IETF is
>very nervous about the new power of the ITU via ICANN.  Lets not appease
>any needs the IETF has by throwing a sacrifical lamb being IPv6.
>
>Also I think its time the vendors started lobbying their interests
>wherever to make sure the Internet infrastructure is not routed with
>phone numbers etc. via ITU thought processes...

The purpose of this suggestion is precisely to keep this aspect of
IPv6 *out* of the hands of the ITU, and to *avoid* throwing IPv6 as
a sacrificial lamb to anyone.

And I don't know if you noticed, but the IAB has put a lot of effort into
blocking apparent attempts by others to put phone numbers into IPv6
addresses.  For example, see <http://www.iab.org/iab/Aug99comment.txt>.

By the way, a couple months ago, I got a call from someone who was very
concerned that the IETF was making a big mistake by deciding to base IPv6
addressing on phone numbers.  When I asked him where he got that mistaken
impression, he said from an Internet Draft written by Jim Bound, on how
to embed NSAP addresses (or was it E.164 addresses?) into IPv6 addresses.
(!)

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Halley <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Jan 2000 13:49:19 -0800

Steve Deering <[email-masked]> writes:

> shipping any code to support bitstring-based reverse lookups.

No one is yet, but the first beta of BIND 9 is scheduled to be out next
week.  BIND 9 currently looks for both the bitstring and nibble forms of
the reverse address in IP6.INT.

It's easy to switch to something else for bitstring labels in a future
beta.  I doubt there'll be so many users with bitstring label reverse
domains that this would be a problem.  In order to continue
interoperating with sites which do not have bitstring-aware
nameservers I expect that people will maintain both the nibble and
bitstring forms of reverse address for some time.  Because BIND 9 will
search for the nibble form if it doesn't find the bitstring form, a
change in the bitstring suffix shouldn't disrupt reverse lookups for
sites which continue to maintain the nibble form.

I don't have a position on what domain should be used for bitstrings,
but I'd like the choice to be made before May, when BIND 9 is
scheduled to leave beta.

/Bob