IPv6 Dig reverse lookup options roadmap
Edward C Clarkson
edcclark at us.ibm.com
Fri Mar 15 20:19:45 UTC 2002
BIND developer folks--
Given the recent changes in IPv6 DNS standards, the current DiG behavior
for reverse IPv6 lookups isn't (or soon won't be) as useful as it could
be. Given that, in our port we are considering the following changes to
the dig syntax:
|Reverse Lookup Format | Current Option | Proposed Option
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|bitstring, ip6.arpa | -x | ??
|nibble, ipt.int | -n -x | -n -x or -i -x?
|nibble, ip6.arpa | N/A | -x
|-------------------------------------------------------------
We decided that the RFC standard (nibble, ip6.arpa) should obviously be
the easiest to do (via one option instead of two), but weren't sure
whether it was worth including code to do reverse lookups for an
experimental label type or not. We also weren't sure whether we were
going to leave the -n option as the same letter, since it's not really an
option to append 'ip6.int' rather than use the nibble format. If nothing
else, the doc. for the -n option would be changed.
I noted that the most recent 9.3.0 snapshot has the same behavior as
9.2.x...given current (RFC 3152) and probable future RFCs, the present dig
syntax/function isn't exactly ideal, and I would expect that it will be
changed in the (near?) future.
So my question for the BIND developers: is there any plan for the
behavior post-9.2 dig might have? If so, is it similar to what I have
here? If not, are these changes reasonable? Is a bitstring option
necessary?
We would very much like the changes we make to our port of the 9.2 branch
to match whatever BIND does going forward so we're not caught differing
from the reference server after our release date. If anyone has some
helpful hints/comments on what BIND might (or might -not-) do, I'd
appreciate the clue!
Regards,
Edward Clarkson
IBM/SWG
z/OS Communication Server Development
Email: edcclark at us.ibm.com
More information about the bind-workers
mailing list