summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt227
1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b226ce6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+Bush Best Current Practice [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3152 Delegation of IP6.ARPA August 2001
+
+
+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", RFC 1886, December 1995.
+
+ [RFC2553] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens,
+ "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553,
+ March 1999.
+
+ [RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
+ Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
+ February 2000.
+
+ [RFC2772] Rockell, R. and R. Fink, "6Bone Backbone Routing
+ Guidelines", RFC 2772, February 2000.
+
+ [RFC2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support
+ IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July
+ 2001.
+
+ [RFC2916] Faltstrom, P., "E.164 number and DNS", RFC 2916,
+ September 2000.
+
+ [RFC3026] Blane, R., "Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM", RFC 3026,
+ January 2001.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Bush Best Current Practice [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3152 Delegation of IP6.ARPA August 2001
+
+
+6. Author's Address
+
+ Randy Bush
+ 5147 Crystal Springs
+ Bainbridge Island, WA US-98110
+
+ Phone: +1 206 780 0431
+ EMail: randy@psg.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Bush Best Current Practice [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3152 Delegation of IP6.ARPA August 2001
+
+
+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 RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+ Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Bush Best Current Practice [Page 4]
+