• Aucun résultat trouvé

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

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

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

Copied!
3
0
0

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

Documents relatifs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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