[166282] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: comcast ipv6 PTR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Tue Oct 15 17:42:50 2013
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:46:32 -0700."
<574B5044-E7C5-4EF0-AC67-BE1F3E5EE105@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:42:09 +1100
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <574B5044-E7C5-4EF0-AC67-BE1F3E5EE105@bogus.com>, joel jaeggli write
s:
>
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually you just need to *let* the hosts update their own ptr
> >> records using UPDATE.
> >
>
> I don't think that any host out there should be updating the PTR record
> associated with the privacy address it's using for outgoing connections.
> if the provider the prefix is delgated to respond with a genric RR well
> fine. but I doubt very much that there would be any circumstances where
> you'd want hosts doing PTR updates for addresses they're only using
> because their slaac address is a form of information leakage.
Why don't you let the USER decide whether privacy addresses get PTR
records or not. This is a policy decision for the USER not IETF,
NANOG or any other body including the manufacturer. It might default
off but that should be the end of it.
This is about ALLOWING them to do it. Not REQUIRING them to do it.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
