[166141] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: comcast ipv6 PTR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Livingood, Jason)
Wed Oct 9 13:55:54 2013
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Blair Trosper <blair.trosper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:54:52 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAA5Ek4fjKrvrK4P6tARmJMnVEWukPioi3Fho-ZkjQwBrpn_Aiw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/9/13 12:52 PM, "Blair Trosper" <blair.trosper@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's essentially what I'm getting at. If the v6 addresses/blocks are
>allocated in a similar fashion to IPv4, where the octets are clearly named
>by state and "hsd1", then I don't see why they should lack PTR.
With the small # of IPv4 addresses, generating PTRs was not a big deal.
That is not the case for IPv6 and I believe most large scale network
operators would agree with that.
>However, even if they're not assigned or delegated in that way, it'd be
>helpful to have SOME form of PTR on there.
Helpful for what, precisely?
Jason
