[125978] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Nanog] Re: IPv6 rDNS - how will it be done?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold)
Tue Apr 27 20:59:01 2010
From: Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold <xenophage@godshell.com>
In-Reply-To: <p2l88ac5c711004271750q18f9d94ci574b41e118e4fe7b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:58:32 -0400
To: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 27, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Na=EFve question: If you used macro expansion, wouldn't you end up
> providing responses for a lot of addresses that aren't in use? Maybe
> that's not a problem?
Presumably the op would only use macros where needed, ie dynamically =
assigned addresses. So, for a pool of addresses assigned for =
DSL/Cable/FIOS subscribers, that pool would have forward/reverse set up.
Note: I am definitely not up on my IPv6 knowledge, so there may be a =
Really Good Reason(tm) that one should not do this.. However, I was =
under the impression that having both forward and reverse for dynamic =
IPs was a best practice..
---------------------------
Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
xenophage@godshell.com
---------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
- Niven's Inverse of Clarke's Third Law
