diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt | 339 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 339 deletions
diff --git a/contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt b/contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9d7a39c..0000000 --- a/contrib/bind9/doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,339 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Network Working Group R. Bush -Request for Comments: 3363 A. Durand -Updates: 2673, 2874 B. Fink -Category: Informational O. Gudmundsson - T. Hain - Editors - August 2002 - - - Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) - Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS) - -Status of this Memo - - This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does - not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this - memo is unlimited. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This document clarifies and updates the standards status of RFCs that - define direct and reverse map of IPv6 addresses in DNS. This - document moves the A6 and Bit label specifications to experimental - status. - -1. Introduction - - The IETF had begun the process of standardizing two different address - formats for IPv6 addresses AAAA [RFC1886] and A6 [RFC2874] and both - are at proposed standard. This had led to confusion and conflicts on - which one to deploy. It is important for deployment that any - confusion in this area be cleared up, as there is a feeling in the - community that having more than one choice will lead to delays in the - deployment of IPv6. The goal of this document is to clarify the - situation. - - This document also discusses issues relating to the usage of Binary - Labels [RFC 2673] to support the reverse mapping of IPv6 addresses. - - This document is based on extensive technical discussion on various - relevant working groups mailing lists and a joint DNSEXT and NGTRANS - meeting at the 51st IETF in August 2001. This document attempts to - capture the sense of the discussions and reflect them in this - document to represent the consensus of the community. - - - -Bush, et. al. Informational [Page 1] - -RFC 3363 Representation of IPv6 Addresses in DNS August 2002 - - - The main arguments and the issues are covered in a separate document - [RFC3364] that reflects the current understanding of the issues. - This document summarizes the outcome of these discussions. - - The issue of the root of reverse IPv6 address map is outside the - scope of this document and is covered in a different document - [RFC3152]. - -1.1 Standards Action Taken - - This document changes the status of RFCs 2673 and 2874 from Proposed - Standard to Experimental. - -2. IPv6 Addresses: AAAA RR vs A6 RR - - Working group consensus as perceived by the chairs of the DNSEXT and - NGTRANS working groups is that: - - a) AAAA records are preferable at the moment for production - deployment of IPv6, and - - b) that A6 records have interesting properties that need to be better - understood before deployment. - - c) It is not known if the benefits of A6 outweigh the costs and - risks. - -2.1 Rationale - - There are several potential issues with A6 RRs that stem directly - from the feature that makes them different from AAAA RRs: the ability - to build up addresses via chaining. - - Resolving a chain of A6 RRs involves resolving a series of what are - nearly-independent queries. Each of these sub-queries takes some - non-zero amount of time, unless the answer happens to be in the - resolver's local cache already. Other things being equal, we expect - that the time it takes to resolve an N-link chain of A6 RRs will be - roughly proportional to N. What data we have suggests that users are - already impatient with the length of time it takes to resolve A RRs - in the IPv4 Internet, which suggests that users are not likely to be - patient with significantly longer delays in the IPv6 Internet, but - terminating queries prematurely is both a waste of resources and - another source of user frustration. Thus, we are forced to conclude - that indiscriminate use of long A6 chains is likely to lead to - increased user frustration. - - - - - -Bush, et. al. Informational [Page 2] - -RFC 3363 Representation of IPv6 Addresses in DNS August 2002 - - - The probability of failure during the process of resolving an N-link - A6 chain also appears to be roughly proportional to N, since each of - the queries involved in resolving an A6 chain has roughly the same - probability of failure as a single AAAA query. - - Last, several of the most interesting potential applications for A6 - RRs involve situations where the prefix name field in the A6 RR - points to a target that is not only outside the DNS zone containing - the A6 RR, but is administered by a different organization entirely. - While pointers out of zone are not a problem per se, experience both - with glue RRs and with PTR RRs in the IN-ADDR.ARPA tree suggests that - pointers to other organizations are often not maintained properly, - perhaps because they're less susceptible to automation than pointers - within a single organization would be. - -2.2 Recommended Standard Action - - Based on the perceived consensus, this document recommends that RFC - 1886 stay on standards track and be advanced, while moving RFC 2874 - to Experimental status. - -3. Bitlabels in the Reverse DNS Tree - - RFC 2673 defines a new DNS label type. This was the first new type - defined since RFC 1035 [RFC1035]. Since the development of 2673 it - has been learned that deployment of a new type is difficult since DNS - servers that do not support bitlabels reject queries containing bit - labels as being malformed. The community has also indicated that - this new label type is not needed for mapping reverse addresses. - -3.1 Rationale - - The hexadecimal text representation of IPv6 addresses appears to be - capable of expressing all of the delegation schemes that we expect to - be used in the DNS reverse tree. - -3.2 Recommended Standard Action - - RFC 2673 standard status is to be changed from Proposed to - Experimental. Future standardization of these documents is to be - done by the DNSEXT working group or its successor. - - - - - - - - - - -Bush, et. al. Informational [Page 3] - -RFC 3363 Representation of IPv6 Addresses in DNS August 2002 - - -4. DNAME in IPv6 Reverse Tree - - The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be - closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if - one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the - other isn't either. Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental, - the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse - tree be deprecated. - -5. Acknowledgments - - This document is based on input from many members of the various IETF - working groups involved in this issues. Special thanks go to the - people that prepared reading material for the joint DNSEXT and - NGTRANS working group meeting at the 51st IETF in London, Rob - Austein, Dan Bernstein, Matt Crawford, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, - Christian Huitema. Number of other people have made number of - comments on mailing lists about this issue including Andrew W. - Barclay, Robert Elz, Johan Ihren, Edward Lewis, Bill Manning, Pekka - Savola, Paul Vixie. - -6. Security Considerations - - As this document specifies a course of action, there are no direct - security considerations. There is an indirect security impact of the - choice, in that the relationship between A6 and DNSSEC is not well - understood throughout the community, while the choice of AAAA does - leads to a model for use of DNSSEC in IPv6 networks which parallels - current IPv4 practice. - -7. IANA Considerations - - None. - -Normative References - - [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and - Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC1886] Thompson, S. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support IP - version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995. - - [RFC2673] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", - RFC 2673, August 1999. - - [RFC2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support - IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July - 2000. - - - -Bush, et. al. Informational [Page 4] - -RFC 3363 Representation of IPv6 Addresses in DNS August 2002 - - - [RFC3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", BCP 49, RFC 3152 - August 2001. - -Informative References - - [RFC3364] Austein, R., "Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) - Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3364, - August 2002. - -Editors' Addresses - - Randy Bush - EMail: randy@psg.com - - - Alain Durand - EMail: alain.durand@sun.com - - - Bob Fink - EMail: fink@es.net - - - Olafur Gudmundsson - EMail: ogud@ogud.com - - - Tony Hain - EMail: hain@tndh.net - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Bush, et. al. Informational [Page 5] - -RFC 3363 Representation of IPv6 Addresses in DNS August 2002 - - -Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. - - This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to - others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it - or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published - and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any - kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are - included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this - document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing - the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other - Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of - developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for - copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be - followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than - English. - - The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be - revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. - - This document and the information contained herein is provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING - TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING - BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION - HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF - MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - -Acknowledgement - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Bush, et. al. Informational [Page 6] - |
