[166132] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: comcast ipv6 PTR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blair Trosper)
Wed Oct 9 13:06:55 2013
In-Reply-To: <20131009164947.GI1193@cmadams.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:00:36 -0500
From: Blair Trosper <blair.trosper@gmail.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
True, but the location information, at least the state, is quasi-helpful.
You may be right about PTR being a mistake, but I guess my mind approaches
it from a practical, quasi-GeoIP approach.
IPv6 seems to be somewhat chaotic in that realm. Plus, with web
applications and services, accurate GeoIP has implications for security.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Robert Webb <rwebb@ropeguru.com> said:
> > But how would thet differ from the IPv4 address space which has PTR
> > records for all their IP's? Just the shear number they would have to
> > deal with in the IPv6 space?
>
> Oh, are you looking for auto-generated reverse for every address?
> That's not going to happen for IPv6 (and it turns out that it wasn't
> really a good idea for IPv4). There's no reason to have reverse DNS
> unless it has meaning, and "12-34-56-78.rev.domain.net" isn't really all
> that useful.
>
> --
> Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
>
>
