[166130] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: comcast ipv6 PTR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Sullivan)
Wed Oct 9 12:59:27 2013
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:58:45 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAA5Ek4fVhjzjLTAFovc4gopOqPuSO8twc-dVwPf7WXZzAgvrmg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:35:16AM -0500, Blair Trosper wrote:
> Does anyone know why (or can someone from Comcast explain why) there is no
> PTR on their residential/business IPv6 addresses?
Probably because of the considerations in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-06. I seem to
remember someone showing up in DNSOP one time to argue for a draft
that the reverse mapping should just be optional under IPv6, but I
can't lay my hands on the draft. The last time DNSOP tried to come up
with recommendations about the reverse tree, the resulting document
was
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.
It says, roughly, "Well, some peple use the reverse tree and some
don't. You might want to think about that, or not." Despite
asserting a version of "A or not-A", we were unable to achieve
consensus, so I think the hope of consistency in the reverse tree is
not supported by operational evidence.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn, Inc.
asullivan@dyn.com
v: +1 603 663 0448
