July 2007 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Last Call: Secondary service on ns.ripe.net for reverse delegations
by Peter Koch 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

Dear WG, at the Tallinn meeting, Brett Carr gave a presentation on DNS operations at the RIPE NCC. In his report a proposal regarding the DNS name service for /16 reverse was made. See <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/r54-minutes.html>, item [D] for the minutes and slide 12 of the presentation <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/DNS_update.pdf> for details. This resulted in action item 54.1 on the NCC to solicit feedback on the proposal. Brett started a thread on the DNS WG mailing list on May, 14th <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2007/msg00107.html> (Message-ID: <4A6256C3-97B5-4415-BC93-9A2978A01A20(a)ripe.net>). Summary: To eliminate an inconsistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies, where /16 reverse on ns.ripe.net is mandatory for v4 and there's no such policy for v6, three options were given: 1) Make ns.ripe.net mandatory on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 2) Make ns.ripe.net optional on ipv4 and ipv6 delegations 3) Discontinue the secondary service on ns.ripe.net for new delegations. The NCC's preference was (2). The thread started as mentioned above saw 8 replies until June. Those who expressed an opinion were in favour of going forward with (2). Since the thread hasn't been active for a while, the WG chairs would like to issue a Last Call on this topic. Please take these remarks into consideration: o While cost of service has been mentioned, detailed discussion would be a topic for the NCC Services WG. For now we assume that the cost structure (essentially: no additional cost) will remain unmodified. o When the secondary service is "optional" this should be read in a symmetric way, i.e. not only the /16 maintainer can choose to opt-out, but also the NCC could, on reasonable operational grounds, terminate or not activate support for a particular zone. Now, finally, even though this issue is not subject to the PDP, this is a Last Call until Friday, 31 August 2007, 12:00 UTC Please voice your opinion, the default will be to continue with (2) above. We'd like to ask the NCC to prepare an implementation plan after this date. -Peter Koch [DNS WG co-chair]

3 4

DRAFT RIPE 54 DNS WG Minutes posted
by Peter Koch 29 Aug '07

29 Aug '07

Dear WG, with apologies for the delay and many thanks to Adrian Bedford, who delivered them on time, the draft minutes for the Tallinn meeting are now available at <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/r54-minutes.html> Please send in comments and/or corrections by Friday, 2007-08-03, after which this or an amended version will be considered final. -Peter

3 5

RIPE-55 coming up
by Jaap Akkerhuis 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

Yes, I know it will be October but these things have a habbit of sneaking up on you before you know it. Therefore, now is the time not only for vacation but also to spend some thought about contributions to the dns-wg or suggestions for topics. jaap

1 0

IPv6 backresolve with DNSSEC
by Max Tulyev 09 Jul '07

09 Jul '07

Hi All, I tried to create a DNSSEC signed backresolve domain for my IPv6 block: domain: 0.d.0.0.1.0.a.2.ip6.arpa descr: NetAssist LLC org: ORG-NL64-RIPE admin-c: MT6561-RIPE tech-c: MT6561-RIPE zone-c: MT6561-RIPE nserver: ns.netassist.kiev.ua nserver: ns.netassist.ru ds-rdata: 46236 5 1 B42280F344BB12FCC5030673109EF84EF2C4D3A7 mnt-by: MEREZHA-MNT mnt-lower: MEREZHA-MNT changed: support(a)netassist.kiev.ua 20070704 source: RIPE and it fails with: ***Error: DS records are not accepted for this zone. ***Error: RDNS Authorisation failed but without ds-rdata everything works fine. Is it a (my) bug or a feature? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

2 3