Subject: RESEND: DNS IPv6.INT issue

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:01:21 -0500

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email-masked]>

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
To: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Use of IP6.INT 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:56:42 PST."
             <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.948841002.12374.nordmark@jurassic> 
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:33:39 -0500
X-Mts: smtp
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi Erik,

>Please followup on the ipngwg list only.

ACK.

>There has been some discussion for a while in the IAB and IESG about the
>use of .INT. Since this is assigned to ITU to do assignments for
>international (treaty?) organizations it is clear that the IETF should
>not use .INT for any future use.

Why is the suffix an issue if the prefix is different?  This sounds
like a political issue but has technical ramifications.

Also who actually owns the Reverse Tree now?  I did not think it was
the IETF, and best they could do is make recommendation?  

What would ITU use a .INT for? 

Clarity on the above three points would be useful (thanks).

>The question on the table is whether or not we should switch IP6.INT
>to be somewhere else. I'd like to understand the implications of
>doing such a switch and in particular it it can be piggy-backed on
>the transition from AAAA to A6, DNAME, and binary labels.

Well we all have shipping products that use IPv6.INT.  As you know most
of us have it hardcoded in our C runtime libraries (e.g. getnameinfo).  
Also users have configs using IPv6.INT.  

But if we leave "nibble" queries under IPv6.INT and     
binary label queries under ip6.arpa (as one mail recently
suggested), that feels OK.

I would like to hear Bill Mannings view of this too to the list?

regards,
/jim

- --KAA28383.948998041/engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM--

------- End of Forwarded Message

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:42:40 -0800 (PST)

% >There has been some discussion for a while in the IAB and IESG about the
% >use of .INT. Since this is assigned to ITU to do assignments for
% >international (treaty?) organizations it is clear that the IETF should
% >not use .INT for any future use.

	It is -NOT- true that the .INT. zone is assigned to the ITU.
	It is not clear that the IETF should recommend any given 
	entry point in the DNS heirarchy as long as it works.

% Why is the suffix an issue if the prefix is different?  This sounds
% like a political issue but has technical ramifications.

	This is true.

% Also who actually owns the Reverse Tree now?  I did not think it was
% the IETF, and best they could do is make recommendation?  

	ICANN has operational control of .INT and is unlikely
	to transition it elsewhere, at least in the forseeable
	future.
 
% What would ITU use a .INT for? 

	.INT has two functions, INTernet infrastructure and
	INTernational treaty organizations. This last reason
	is the argument ITU makes for taking on the zone.

% Clarity on the above three points would be useful (thanks).
% 
% I would like to hear Bill Mannings view of this too to the list?

	Again? :)  I'm not in favor of re-activating and new 
	efforts in the .ARPA domain, there has been a long, 
	sometimes painful effort to clear out this zone.

	I'd like to hear a technical reason to migrate.
	(and I'd really like to see more flexability in the
	resolver code but that is another issue.)
	
% regards,
% /jim
% 
% 
% - --KAA28383.948998041/engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM--
% 
% 
% ------- End of Forwarded Message
% 
% --------------------------------------------------------------------
% 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]
% --------------------------------------------------------------------
% 

-- 
--bill

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:14:43 -0500

Hi Erik,

Hmm.  From Bill's response below I have to say that I do NOT support the
IETF processes altering the present ipv6.INT zone.  It also does not
sound like the IETF gets to make this decision anyway.  Sounds like an
ICANN decision?

If your coming to this list to see if implementors support this change I
can understand that, as I assume the IETF wants to use that as part of
its input gathering to ICANN.   

Well this implementor don't support the change and I recommend to other
implementors that they not support this change, until the questions from
the attached from Bill Manning are in fact resolved.  But with the change
it appears we also may want to keep ipv6.INT for installed type
processing of nibbles (as I state nested in Bills attached mail).

I will also forward this mail to the IPv6 Forum as this has direct
ramifications to the deployment of IPv6 at this time, to see what comes
back from that set of folks.

regards,
/jim 

	This is true.

 

	
% regards,
% /jim
% 
%

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:58:53 -0800 (PST)

Jim,

> its input gathering to ICANN.   

It is actually the IAB that has discussed things and decided not to use
.INT for future infrastructure sort of things. I suspect that part of
their concern is that the future ownership of .INT is not clear and that we
do not want to make infrastructure type of things depend on that unclear
future.

Thus I just wanted to check if there are any technical issues with switching.
Jim, do you have any technical issues? (given that A6 and binary labels are not
yet deployed as far as I know)

It sounds like both you and Bill do not feel that the change is necessary
(even if it has no or very small technical implications.)
I'll try to get some more data on why the IAB feels that it is a good thing
to not use .INT for future infrastructure things.

> processing of nibbles (as I state nested in Bills attached mail).

Of course. I'm not suggesting that the current RFC 1886 (AAAA records and
nibble reverse lookups) be touched at all.
The question is about the technical implications of changing the binary
labels lookup specified in draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups
could use something else that ip6.int.
If we do this switch before there is any deployment of A6/binary labels
it seems like there wouldn't be any impact.
(A few lines of code would have to be changed in BINDv9 and other
implementations of A6 but that is it.)

> back from that set of folks.

What impact does it have on deployment given that nobody is advocating changing
the currently used RFC 1886 behavior?

   Erik

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:23:34 -0500

Hi Erik,

I think the IAB is out of there place here.  Not there business other
than writing a recommendation.

If we can keep ipv6.INT for awhile for nibbles this will work.
I don't see A6 getting deployed and this should not affect it.
So I don't think there is an issue dowm the road.

As I said ipv6.INT is hard coded on our implementation in the resolver
and I would think others.  I just don't want to send out a patch fix for
IPv6 for this reason.  

But I am also responding to the political issue and why do this in the
first place.

Not trying to shoot the messenger guy... I hope you know that...

thanks
/jim

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:32:40 -0800 (PST)

> and I would think others.  I just don't want to send out a patch fix for

Does your resolver implement A6 and binary labels?
If not you have no reason for any concern.
We are only discussion what would make sense when A6 and binary labels
are deployed.

   Erik

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:46:19 -0800 (PST)

% It is actually the IAB that has discussed things and decided not to use
% .INT for future infrastructure sort of things. I suspect that part of
% their concern is that the future ownership of .INT is not clear and that we
% do not want to make infrastructure type of things depend on that unclear
% future.

	Man, can I have a crack at that crystal ball.  I think that
	if the IAB chooses to abandon .INT. that the community will 
	be left with yet another legacy, grandfathered system that will
	have to be supported for a very long time.

% It sounds like both you and Bill do not feel that the change is necessary
% (even if it has no or very small technical implications.)

	I don;t see the perceived value.

% The question is about the technical implications of changing the binary
% labels lookup specified in draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups
% could use something else that ip6.int.
% If we do this switch before there is any deployment of A6/binary labels
% it seems like there wouldn't be any impact.
% (A few lines of code would have to be changed in BINDv9 and other
% implementations of A6 but that is it.)

	Well, according to Matts note, it ought to be fairly
	trivial to make the change, into any part of the tree.
	I still don't see a technical reason for it and I see
	several social reasons to not make the switch (since we
	already had this discussion when ip6.int was selected.)

%    Erik

--bill

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:07:31 -0500

Hi Erik,

>Does your resolver implement A6 and binary labels?

Not until we release BINDv9 as you.  

>We are only discussion what would make sense when A6 and binary labels

Reverse queries will look for ipv6.int zone for AAAA records.

/jim

/jim