Re: [Mip6] Re: RFC2136 and IP address ownership

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

# Note you talk about the IP address ownership for updates in the reverse
# tree when the issue in the MIP6 WG context is about updates in the
# direct tree, i.e., the address is the RDATA and not the NAME.

this i did not know.  clearly the problem must be broader than i'd thought.

# To come back to IPv6 and dynamic DNS update, DHCPv6 is not commonly
# used for the address management because the stateless autoconfig
# (RFC 2462) is far simpler.

there is a growing movement of operators away from EUI64 addressing.  i
spoke on this topic at a recent NAV6TF meeting.

# A possible solution is to use CGAs (RFC 3972) which provide a nice proof of
# ownership on the interface ID (low 64 bits of addresses).  IMHO this should
# be better than to rely on some kind of return routability check. The crypto
# part (RSA signature) is not a problem for a DNS software already supporting
# DNSSEC.

if heavy weight protocols are available and appropriate for cell boundary
crossings, then GSS-TSIG will probably serve, and all of this is moot anyway.

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