Is an IPv6-only glue/delegation record a problem in a world of IPv4?

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 2010/01/11, at 14:48, Mathew J. Newton wrote:

>> FWIW, at least one of the afilias hosts had the same IPv4 address for
>> ns[12].v6ns.org.
> 
>>> ns1.v6ns.org.           86400   IN      A       77.103.161.36
>>> ns1.v6ns.org.           86400   IN      AAAA    2a01:348:133::a1
>>> ns2.v6ns.org.           86400   IN      A       77.103.161.36
>>> ns2.v6ns.org.           86400   IN      AAAA    2a01:348:6:a1::2
> 
> Hmm.. That's interesting. I know for a fact that my registrar wouldn't
> allow me to enter two servers with the same address, however within my
> zone I may have had ns[12] set with IPv4 records set for a period (a few
> days ago). This makes me wonder where .org is getting its records from - a
> combination of glue provided by the registrar and cached results from my
> zone?

The org. name servers are authoritative-only.. no caching takes place.

Also, the registry is contractually prevented from modifying zone data supplied by the registrars, which would preclude it from cloning the v4 address from one name server to the other.  Besides, as database objects, the relationship between one name server and the other would be pretty loose, and there'd be no reasonable way to assume that ns2.v6ns.org is authoritative for everything that ns1.v6ns.org is authoritative for.

I suspect that, even though they threw an error, your registrar went ahead and passed on the same IPv4 address for both name servers to the registry.

Matt