[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:04:44PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >>In fact, it would
> >>probably be a good idea to keep ip6.int around forever. If nobody uses
> >>it, there is no harm in it being there. If people still use it, then
> >>removing it causes problems.
> 
> >Maintaining both trees does cause quite some administrative overhead
> >(depending on the name server software and zone file format you use, 
> >you
> >cannot just point both zones to the same file.
> 
> Then you probably also use an OS that doesn't support file system 
> links?  :-)

There is no difference between symlinks / hard links and pointing both
zones to the same file from inside BIND.

The difference *is* that the content will not necessarily be identical
- think "delegation to customers that provide only ip6.arpa, not ip6.int".

If you do the delegation from a common file for both zones, you're
creating lame delegations, which is a much worse problem than just 
dropping ip6.int globally.

[..]
> >Even if you can, the
> >whole thing falls apart if you want to delegate a /48 to your customer,
> >and the customer has only ip6.arpa, but not ip6.int -> lame delegation,
> >or distinct zone files further up the tree).
> 
> I'm not arguing EVERYONE should continue to support ip6.int forever, 
> just that the delegations to those who still do should remain in place. 
> If you feel you shouldn't support ip6.int in your network, by all 
> means, remove it.

We will.

OTOH, maintaining ip6.int at the RIR registries is costing some amount
of money.  Of which we have to pay our share, and there is no sense in it.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  65398  (60210)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299