Re: IPv6 reverse lookup - lame delegation?

[itojun () itojun org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)]

> > > ... <http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt> ...
> >
> > last i heard from you, you said that DNAME would be evaluated by recursive
> > resolver and will not be visible to end client... what changed?
>
> according to this experiment:
>
> +---
> | ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. \
> |     IN PTR
> | 
> | ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> | 8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. 7200   IN      DNAME   8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.
> | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. \
> |     0 IN CNAME \
> |     3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.
> | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. \
> |     7200 IN PTR sa.vix.com.
> +---
>
> ...there is a DNAME provided, which most resolvers will just ignore, and
> there is a synthesized (TTL=0) CNAME provided.  the main purpose of the
> DNAME is to tell the authority server to synthesize these CNAMEs.

        i understand some implementation (BIND 9.3?) does this, but is the
        behavior documented somewhere in the set of RFCs?  for instance,
        does djbdns do it?  does MS DNS server do it?

        i'm very skeptical about the possibility (or reality) of DNAME-based
        transition.

itojun