RFC3152 - Delegation of IP6.ARPA

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group R. Bush

Request for Comments: 3152 RGnet

BCP: 49 August 2001

Updates: 2874, 2772, 2766, 2553, 1886

Category: Best Current Practice

Delegation of IP6.ARPA

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the

Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document discusses the need for delegation of the IP6.ARPA DNS

zone, and specifies a plan for the technical operation thereof.

1. Why IP6.ARPA?

In the IPv6 address space, there is a need for 'reverse mapping' of

addresses to DNS names analogous to that provided by the IN-ADDR.ARPA

zone for IPv4.

The IAB recommended that the ARPA top level domain (the name is now

considered an acronym for "Address and Routing Parameters Area") be

used for technical infrastrUCture sub-domains when possible. It is

already in use for IPv4 reverse mapping and has been established as

the location for E.164 numbering on the Internet [RFC2916 RFC3026].

IETF consensus was reached that the IP6.ARPA domain be used for

address to DNS name mapping for the IPv6 address space [RFC2874].

2. Obsoleted Usage

This document deprecates references to IP6.INT in [RFC1886] section

2.5, [RFC2553] section 6.2.3, [RFC2766] section 4.1, [RFC2772]

section 7.1.c, and [RFC2874] section 2.5.

In this context, 'deprecate' means that the old usage is not

appropriate for new implementations, and IP6.INT will likely be

phased out in an orderly fashion.

3. IANA Considerations

This memo requests that the IANA delegate the IP6.ARPA domain

following instructions to be provided by the IAB. Names within this

zone are to be further delegated to the regional IP registries in

accordance with the delegation of IPv6 address space to those

registries. The names allocated should be hierarchic in accordance

with the address space assignment.

4. Security Considerations

While DNS spoofing of address to name mapping has been eXPloited in

IPv4, delegation of the IP6.ARPA zone creates no new threats to the

security of the internet.

5. References

[RFC1886] Thomson, S. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support IP

version 6", RFC1886, December 1995.

[RFC2553] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens,

"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC2553,

March 1999.

[RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address

Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC2766,

February 2000.

[RFC2772] Rockell, R. and R. Fink, "6Bone Backbone Routing

Guidelines", RFC2772, February 2000.

[RFC2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support

IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC2874, July

2001.

[RFC2916] Faltstrom, P., "E.164 number and DNS", RFC2916,

September 2000.

[RFC3026] Blane, R., "Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM", RFC3026,

January 2001.

6. Author's Address

Randy Bush

5147 Crystal Springs

Bainbridge Island, WA US-98110

Phone: +1 206 780 0431

EMail: randy@psg.com

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
 
 
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有 導航