[131727] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 rDNS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Freedman)
Tue Nov 2 12:49:10 2010
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:48:49 +0000
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
In-Reply-To: <000001cb79d4$45583f30$d008bd90$@org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Lee Howard wrote:
> Since there's a thread here, I'll mention rDNS for residential users.
>
> I'm not sure there's consensus about whether forward and reverse ought
> to match (how strong a "should" is that?). I know you can't populate
> every potential record in a reverse zone, as in IPv4. You can generate
> records on the fly, or just not provide PTRs.
>
> I've described options in draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-04 but I'm not sure
> enough people care whether it's published as an RFC. Discuss on
> IETF's dnsop list.
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
Presuming that signed wildcarding in ip6.arpa is achieveable under
DNSSEC (use of the LABELS field), would be interested in anybody other
than IRC operators who feel they still require forward and reverse DNS
to match,
I feel this preferable than either not providing PTRs or dynamically
creating them on query (which would be cool but another headache DoS
vector to manage well)
Thoughts?
--
David Freedman
Group Network Engineering
Claranet Group
