On 16 Dec 2008, at 12:39, Roque Gagliano wrote:
There is a draft that surely one day will be published that you could reference in order to support your assertion that reverse DNS is worth doing -- see draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping- considerations-06.txt.well the document is currently expired.
I don't believe you should infer from that that it has been dropped (but no doubt Andrew would let you know the full story; try ajs@crankycanuck.ca ).
As you describe dual-stack support for various ancillary services an exchange point operator might make available to connected organisations, you might mention that it's not necessary for any of that work to be done as a prerequisite for bilateral IPv6 peering across the fabric.you meant that the operator might be unaware that the participant are exchanging IPv6 sessions using link local.
No, actually -- I meant that even if the web page, the traffic collection, the route server, etc, etc are not dual-stack capable, the fact that you've assign some v6 addresses to peers means they can peer regardless. Your document seems to suggest (by my reading) that all that dual-stack work is required before an exchange point can be said to support v6, which I think is not the case.
I don't think suggesting that BGP peering using link-local addresses is sensible is a good idea, but perhaps that's just my own religion showing through.
Joe