[166652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reverse DNS RFCs and Recommendations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Sat Nov 2 07:39:08 2013
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Nov 2013 20:16:09 +0900."
<5274DEF9.3040405@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:38:12 +1100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <5274DEF9.3040405@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >> Over the cable modem?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> OK.
>
> >> The cable modem is the CPE, which accept the DHCP packet to it.
> >
> > A cable modem both accepts DHCP packets (for management of the
> > modem) and passes DHCP packets through to the customer device.
>
> Even if the CPE does so, which means there is no NAT, the key
> to update rDNS must, naturally, be contained only in DHCP reply
> to the CPE.
A cable modem is a media converter. That can be managed and that
management interface also uses DHCP is irrelevent.
> And, I'm afraid your draft assumes that the CPE behaves as a
> DHCP server for local hosts, which means the CPE is responsible
> for rDNS registration.
My draft assumes the CPE device is a PD client. It may or may not
be a DHCP server for the internal network. Again that is irrelevent.
> Masataka Ohta
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
