I believe the RFC you are looking for is 3596: DNS Extensions to Support
IP Version 6. It officially obsoletes 1886 and 3152.
--
Tim Bosserman
EarthLink R&D
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 16-feb-05, at 18:49, John Fraizer wrote:
I have working revDNS zone for my subnet (.ip6.arpa), but i still need
ip6.int.
#!/bin/bash
sed 's/ip6.arpa/ip6.int/g' source.ip6.arpa > destination.ip6.int
Ok, so what happens now is that d.e.a.d.b.e.e.f.ip6.arpa and
d.e.a.d.b.e.e.f.ip6.int are equivalent. However, this doesn't seem to be in
line with the RFCs I'm reading.
In the beginning, there was RFC 1886, and we had the x.x.x.x.ip6.int reverse
mapping and life was good.
Then at some point a whole bunch of RFCs was published with a whole new way
of doing things, in the RFC 2[8|6]7x range. However, those RFCs DO NOT
mandate the use of x.x.x.x.ip6.arpa, as far as I can tell from a quick scan.
According to those RFCs, looking up the reverse mapping should be done the
way the host and nslookup commands on my Mac do:
[alumange:~] iljitsch% host 2001:200::8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085
Host \[x2001020000008002020347FFFEA53085/128].ip6.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
[alumange:~] iljitsch% nslookup -silent 2001:200::8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085
sequoia
Server: sequoia
Address: 2001:1af8:2:5::2#53
** server can't find \[x2001020000008002020347FFFEA53085/128].ip6.arpa:
NXDOMAIN
Now RFC 3364 says the RFC 2874 is better, but the additional benefit over the
RFC 1886 way is too small to warrant the trouble of the gruesome upgrade
cycle that's needed.
So how did we end up in the current x.x.x.x.ip6.arpa situation? I haven't
been able to find any document that mandates this, what gives?
_______________________________________________
6bone mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
_______________________________________________
6bone mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
