The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
nanog at jima.tk
Sat Jun 11 23:19:42 UTC 2011
On 2011-06-10 21:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> I just wish someone had said the same when it was decided that .ip6.int in reverse DNS zone files was ugly and needed to be changed to .ip6.arpa. Or when someone decided that it's a good idea to set the DF bit on ALL packets when doing PMTUD.
> Frankly, I agree that ip6.arpa makes more sense than ip6.int. What I don't understand is why we needed a different in-addr SLD to begin with.
> Why couldn't it be in-addr.arpa? It's not like any valid IPv6 PTR record would conflict with any valid IPv4 PTR record. I don't mind ip6.arpa,
> but, whatever.
The PTRs would never conflict, but the v4 NS records would pre-empt
delegation of certain v6 prefixes. Case in point: if authority for
18.104.22.168/24 were delegated (which it is), any requests for authoritative
information for 2001::/16 would have to go through their servers. Compare:
Oops. And yes, I tested this little theory -- it actually applies to
large chunks of 2000::/4.
More information about the NANOG