Subject: Protocol Action: Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:49:47 -0400

The IESG has approved publication of the following Internet-Drafts as
Informational RFCs:

  o Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS
      <draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-02.txt>

  o Tradeoffs in DNS support for IPv6
      <draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-02.txt>

In addition, the IESG has reclassified RFCs 2673 and 2874 from
Proposed Standard to Experimental.

These documents are the products of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Erik Nordmark and Thomas Narten.

Technical Summary
 
With the publication of RFC's 1886 "DNS Extensions to support IP
version 6" (aka AAAA) and 2874 "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address
Aggregation and Renumbering" (aka A6/DNAME), the IETF standardized two
different ways to store IPv6 address information in the DNS. This has
led to confusion and conflicts on which one to deploy.

RFC 2874 defines the A6 RR, which stores IPv6 addresses not as a
single RR, but as a chain of RRs. A6 RRs were designed to simplify
DNS aspects of renumbering sites. In addition, RFC 2874 defined a
DNAME RR, which could be used for management of the reverse tree. This
protocol action reclassifies RFC 2874 as Experimental.
 
RFC 2673 "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System" defines a new DNS
label intended to solve the problem of storing binary data and
delegating authority on arbitrary boundaries. This format was to be
used in the reverse tree for mapping IPv6 addresses via PTR RRs back
into domain names. Since the development of RFC 2673 it has been
learned that deployment of a new type is difficult since DNS servers
that do not support bit labels 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. This protocol action
reclassifies RFC 2673 as Experimental.

With these actions, the the IETF is recommending that the DNS
mechanisms to support IPv6 stay essentially the same as those already
in use with IPv4 today.

Working Group Summary
 
The discussions surrounding the use of A6, Binary Labels, and DNAME to
support IPv6 have been long and divisive. Some in the community
believe that the DNS extensions (and especially A6) provide needed
facilities to ease the burden of site renumbering, and that if not
deployed today, we will not have an opportuntity again in the future
that can displace the installed base. Others feel that sufficient
benefits of the DNS extensions have not been demonstrated, and that
their complexity and potential dangers do not justify widespread use
and deployment.

The (rough) consensus of the community is that the A6, Binary Labels
and DNAME DNS extensions should not be widely deployed for use with
IPv6 at this time, and that IPv6 should continue to use the same basic
mechanisms as IPv4 uses today.
 
Protocol Quality
 
This protocol has been reviewed for the IESG by Erik Nordmark and
Thomas Narten.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>