• Aucun résultat trouvé

The document noted that the use of "ip6.int&#34

N/A
N/A
Info
Télécharger
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "The document noted that the use of "ip6.int&#34"

Copied!
3
0
0
Télécharger maintenant ( 3 Page )

Texte intégral

(1)

Network Working Group G. Huston Request for Comments: 4159 APNIC BCP: 109 August 2005 Category: Best Current Practice

Deprecation of "ip6.int"

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 (2005).

Abstract

This document advises of the deprecation of the use of "ip6.int" for Standards Conformant IPv6 implementations.

1. IPv6 Standards Action

In August 2001 the IETF published [RFC3152], which advised that the use of "ip6.int" as the domain for reverse-mapping of IPv6 addresses to DNS names was deprecated. The document noted that the use of "ip6.int" would be phased out in an orderly fashion.

As of 1 September 2005, the IETF advises the community that the DNS domain "ip6.int" should no longer be used to perform reverse mapping of IPv6 addresses to domain names, and that the domain "ip6.arpa"

should be used henceforth, in accordance with the IANA Considerations described in [RFC3596]. The domain "ip6.int" is deprecated, and its use in IPv6 implementations that conform to the IPv6 Internet

Standards is discontinued.

The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are advised that maintenance of delegation of entries in "ip6.int" is no longer required as part of infrastructure services in support of Internet Standards

Conformant IPv6 implementations as of 1 September 2005. The RIRs are requested to work with their communities to adopt a schedule

regarding the cessation of support of registration services for the "ip6.int" domain.

Huston Best Current Practice [Page 1]

(2)

RFC 4159 ip6.int August 2005

2. IANA Considerations

IANA is advised that the "ip6.int" domain for reverse mapping of IPv6 addresses to domain names is no longer part of Internet Standards Conformant support of IPv6 as of 1 September 2005.

3. Security Considerations

While DNS spoofing of address to name mapping has been exploited in IPv4, removal of the "ip6.int" zone from the standard IPv6

specification creates no new threats to the security of the internet.

4. Acknowledgements

The document was prepared with the assistance of Kurt Lindqvist, Thomas Narten, Paul Wilson, David Kessens, Bob Hinden, Brian Haberman, and Bill Manning.

5. Normative References

[RFC3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", BCP 49, RFC 3152, August 2001.

[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003.

Author’s Address Geoff Huston APNIC

EMail: gih@apnic.net

Huston Best Current Practice [Page 2]

(3)

RFC 4159 ip6.int August 2005

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this

specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.

Huston Best Current Practice [Page 3]

Références

Télécharger maintenant ( PDF - 3 Page - 5.49KB )

Documents relatifs

Assume that S is "closed&#34

[r]

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

This group is implemented by those bridges that support the port-pair multiport model of the source route bridging mode as defined in the IEEE 802.5M SRT Addendum to

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

When an NSSA internal AS boundary router originates a type-7 LSA that it wants to be translated into a type-5 LSA by the NSSA area border router (and subsequently flooded into

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

If the server SMTP does not recognize or cannot implement one or more of the parameters associated with a particular MAIL FROM or RCPT TO command, it will return code 555. If

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

All newly installed routes and all newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route shall be advertised to BGP speakers located in neighboring autonomous

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

In particular, encoding rules for attribute syntaxes defining non-binary values should produce strings that can be.. displayed with little or no translation by clients

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

The VARIATION clause, which need not be present, is repeatedly used to name each object or notification which the agent implements in some variant or refined fashion with

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted with the same values in its request-id

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

Administrators must configure their SNMPv2 entities acting in an agent role to use NBP type "SNMP Agent" (which consists of ten ASCII characters), whilst

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

management instrumentation; at least one management station; and, a management protocol, used to convey management information between the agents and management

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

upon encountering a reference to an OBJECT IDENTIFIER subtree defined in an SNMPv1 MIB module, all leaf objects which are subordinate to the subtree and have a STATUS clause

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

Exactly one CCP packet is encapsulated in the PPP Information field, where the PPP Protocol field indicates type hex 80FD (Compression Control Protocol).. When

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

recognize packets of a particular network layer protocol and count them, it takes additional logic to be able to recognize the addresses in this protocol and

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

Exactly one IPV6CP packet is encapsulated in the Information field of PPP Data Link Layer frames where the Protocol field indicates type hex 8057 (IPv6 Control

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

Note well: The DLSw protocol does not specify a technique for a manager to correlate the transport address of the partner managed DLSw node and the transport address that

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

If there is exactly one entry in the request, and it has a destination prefix of zero, a prefix length of zero, and a metric of infinity (i.e., 16), then this is a request

Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards&#34

protection is in use, and more than one sender is sharing the same IPsec Security Association to that multicast destination address, then Replay Protection SHOULD NOT be

Abstract The document describes a transparent cell transport service that makes use of the "N-to-one&#34

The document describes a transparent cell transport service that makes use of the "N-to-one" cell relay mode for Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)

The IVI is a prefix-specific and stateless address mapping mechanism for "an IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet&#34

In the IVI design, subsets of the ISP’s IPv4 addresses are embedded in the ISP’s IPv6 addresses, and the hosts using these IPv6 addresses can therefore communicate with the

This document updates the "IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry&#34

This document updates the "IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry" by explaining why a unique IPv6 prefix should be formally assigned by IANA for the purpose

of the "purpose&#34

Because the service is UUS1 implicit for the ISDN User-to-User service, the inclusion of the "uui" option tag in a Supported header field conveys no additional

Host names are translated into network "addresses", 32-bit values that identify the network to which a host is attached, and the location of the host on that net

This algorithm takes into account the internet level foreign address, the protocol number, and the local port and foreign port from the higher level protocol header..

Kumari Google October 2017 Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement Abstract The policy defined in RFC 6761 for IANA registrations in the "Special-Use Domain Names&#34

This use case is distinct from the use case for Special-Use Domain Names like ’.local’ and ’.onion’ in that the names are resolved using the DNS protocol (but they do