-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello Asrg List,
I asked this question over at SPAM-L, but I think the question may be of
interest to asrg(_at_)ietf as well:
- --- cut ---
Google was not helpful on this subject, so you may be able to help to
reveal the status of DNSxL notation for IPv6.
What would make sense, and what not? What has already been tried?
I think it would make sense to use something similar to the
reverse-dotted-quad notation used for IPv4, and use the same
request/response types (DNS A/TXT records -- there are enough bits of
information in a A response, no need for A6/AAAA).
Using the "full format" of IPv6 encoding (like [1]), replacing ":" by
"." and reversing the whole thing would be the obvious notation, and
most similar to the IPv4 notation -- however, it seems like a great
waste of bandwidth to me.
Any better ideas?
- --- cut ---
On SPAM-L, the use of the PTR format was suggested:
windtunnel.rarpsl.com. 38400 IN AAAA fe80::203:93ff:fe96:296c
c.6.9.2.6.9.e.f.f.f.3.9.3.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.e.f.ip6.arpa.
38400 IN PTR windtunnel.rarpsl.com.
Besides the bandwidth argument (is this a valid argument?) against using
the "full PTR" format, I have a different thought:
Since Anti-Spam tools will need to be upgrade one way or the other
anyway, it may make sense to include a quasi standard for lookups for
larger (and non-octet-boundary) ranges.
- -- Matthias
[1] 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:1428:57ab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG7tgQxbHw2nyi/okRAuL+AJ9rYeimgcUA553QMpLM1Z9r0mEy4QCghchP
1RVSUk7NM3GdHqYJ8/ppxfk=
=proJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg