Re: DNS name creation [Was: Comments on multi6dt documents]

Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 
> 
>> Umm, I don't think DNSSEC (except some basic components it may use) 
>> really deals that much on DDNS updates, but the point stands that 
>> there has been, AFAIK, relatively little protocol work on adding new 
>> records.
>>
>> I'm not sure of the protocol itself, and the more generic case, but I 
>> believe the reverse DNS issue could be solved, in the important 
>> practical cases, using just an implementation approach.
>>
>> That is,
>>  1) require that the server be located at the same site as the updater 
>> (relatively reasonable)
>>  2) that hopefully some amount of address spoofingi protection has 
>> been deployed on the site: just uRPF on the subnet basis is sufficient
>>  3) make the hosts add the rfc 3041 reverses directly to the zone, 
>> without any security
>>  4) the dns server allows such insertion only if there are no existing 
>> records, and the update comes from the IP address corresponding to the 
>> reverse record
>>  5) the records don't need to be removed by the hosts, only by a 
>> clean-up process by the server
>>
>> Not perfect, there are certainly some corner cases here, but I guess 
>> this should be at least sufficient to experiment with DDNS reverse 
>> insertions if that was deemed to be useful.
> 
> 
> So which RFC that contains the above should I add to the references :-) :-)
> 
> Seriously, I think it would make sense to start writing this down with 
> an eye to hosts which have multiple prefixes. Thus they want a temporary 
> name which has AAAA records for one IP address for each of the prefix.
> (The above procedure just handles a single AAAA record per name, which 
> isn't sufficient to solve the issue.)
> 
> 
> 
>> Still, it would seem to be useful to try to experiment with this, but 
>> this is a subject for another forum.
> 
> 
> I know things in this space have been discussed in DHC in the past, but 
> is there a WG that should work on this?

When we summarize the next steps for multi6, we should include
a gap analysis, and this should be part of it.

    Brian