FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Deering" <deering@cisco.com> To: <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com> Cc: "Bob Hinden" <hinden@iprg.nokia.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Use of IP6.INT

Based on the email exchange a couple weeks ago, regarding placing the new bitstring-based reverse DNS lookup tree under .arpa instead of .int, we appear to have rough consensus that such a change would create no technical problems and negligible deployment or operational impact at this point. Therefore, the chairs propose to tell the IAB and IESG that we are willing to make such a change in draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-nn.txt, if they request it. If there are any previously unvoiced (un-emailed?) objections to doing that, please speak up *now*.

By the way, of the two proposed suffixes (.ip6.arpa or .in6-addr.arpa), are there any good reasons to prefer one over the other?

Bob and Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------