[131730] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 rDNS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sven Olaf Kamphuis)
Tue Nov 2 13:44:50 2010
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven@cb3rob.net>
To: David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
In-Reply-To: <iapfdh$4np$1@dough.gmane.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
would be interested in anybody other
than IRC operators who feel they still require forward and reverse DNS
to match,
SMTP, email-2 (don't ask ;), and preferably (though not required) anything
that has to do with /bin/login on *nix systems (as it shows the reverse
dns host name in who and w and last unless specified otherwise).
although smtp -itself- does note require it to match, the various
"anti-spam" things -do-.
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, David Freedman wrote:
> 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
>
>
