|
|||||||||||
|
[Asrg] DNSxL notation for IPv6?
From: Matthias Leisi <matthias(at)leisi.net>
Date: Mon Sep 17 2007 - 15:40:00 EDT
Hello Asrg List, I asked this question over at SPAM-L, but I think the question may be of interest to asrg@ietf as well:
What would make sense, and what not? What has already been tried? I think it would make sense to use something similar to the reverse-dotted-quad notation used for IPv4, and use the same request/response types (DNS A/TXT records -- there are enough bits of information in a A response, no need for A6/AAAA). Using the "full format" of IPv6 encoding (like [1]), replacing ":" by "." and reversing the whole thing would be the obvious notation, and most similar to the IPv4 notation -- however, it seems like a great waste of bandwidth to me.
Any better ideas?
On SPAM-L, the use of the PTR format was suggested: > windtunnel.rarpsl.com. 38400 IN AAAA fe80::203:93ff:fe96:296c Besides the bandwidth argument (is this a valid argument?) against using the "full PTR" format, I have a different thought: Since Anti-Spam tools will need to be upgrade one way or the other anyway, it may make sense to include a quasi standard for lookups for larger (and non-octet-boundary) ranges.
[1] 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:1428:57ab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFG7tgQxbHw2nyi/okRAuL+AJ9rYeimgcUA553QMpLM1Z9r0mEy4QCghchP
1RVSUk7NM3GdHqYJ8/ppxfk=
Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Received on Mon Sep 17 15:48:20 2007 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 29 2007 - 14:15:57 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||