[Asrg] Another dnsbl draft, now standards flavored

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:39:12PM -0000, John Levine wrote

> I don't see that in the IPv6 documents, and in any event, this draft
> is about DNSBLs, not IPv6 theology.

  It's not about theology, it's about following the rules, just like
IPV4 DNSBLs have to follow the rules of IPV4.  A few thoughts...

  - IPV4 will be around for a while yet, so please do a proper job on it

  - IPV6 will be around after IPV4 disappears, so it's even more important
    to do the IPV6 implementation right
    - in particular, IPV4 DNSxLs use the entire "localhost" address
      space, all 24 bits of it (127.0.0.0/8).
    - do *NOT* impose an IPV4 limit on IPV6.  IPV6 has a "localhost"
      address space of 121 bits (fc00::/7).  Don't be afraid to use it

  - DNSBL servers should not try to pull a "Clippy" in terms of "being
    helpful".
    - If a server gets a query via IPV4, it should return an A record
    - If a server gets a query via IPV6, it should return an AAAA record

  - left hand, say "Hello" to right hand.  This is not a joke.  I
    suggest that you join IETF's ipng mailing list, and run your draft
    past them.
    - these people, better than anybody else, can point out any problems
      with your IPV6 implementation
    - you're not an ordinary end-user; you're developing a standards
      track RFC that should count as "protocol development"
    - the ipng may be in a position to reserve a block of addresses
      *JUST FOR DNSxLs*
    - there may already be something buried deep in the specs allocating
      a block of address just for stuff like this
    - it would look really, really bad if two IETF groups came out with
      contradictory specs

  The ipng list instructions are at...
http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/instructions.html

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes at waltdnes.org>