On 22 May 2014, at 12:19, Chris Thompson <c...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On May 22 2014, Joe Abley wrote: > > [...] >> William has reminded me that there has been some work done amongst current >> AS112 operators to add an IPv6 prefix to the current scheme, and that some >> AS112 operators have deployed it. > > But does this get exercised at all, as long as blackhole-1.iana.org and > blackhole-2.iana.org have no AAAA records?
No. > Is the idea to introduce new > names, or to add AAAA records to the existing names once there are enough > AS112 nodes advertising the IPv6 prefix? For the current AS112 scheme (PRISONER, BLACKHOLE-1, BLACKHOLE-2) the proposal would be (a) update the advice to AS112 operators so that they have a convenient and accurate reference for how to configure the v6 stuff, and (b) make a request of the IANA to add the AAAAs to those three names I would not suggest qualifying (b) above with considerations about availability or node count or anything else, since: (1) the DNS protocol is demonstrably tolerant of unreachable nameserver addresses, (2) this is just a sink for unwanted traffic and hence the service expectations are already properly low and (3) I think it's an unnecessary decision point for IANA staff, who I imagine would be happier carrying out instructions than making subjective judgements that they might be called upon to justify later. William and I can provide some candidate text for review, but this question was really whether there is support for doing so given that the document is already in wglc. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
