[30597] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: lame delegations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joshua Goodall)
Fri Aug 18 15:23:52 2000
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:26:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Joshua Goodall <joshua@roughtrade.net>
To: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, lir-wg@ripe.net
In-Reply-To: <200008181856.OAA10267@Iodine.Mlink.NET>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008182109580.20704-100000@juice.shallow.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Phillip Vandry wrote:
> Why not this?
>
> Registrars only accept to create a glue record if there already exists
> a PTR entry for the requested address that points to the right name.
>
> -Phil
off the top of my head, I'd say
a) DNS is very spoofable
b) there's a catch-22; for sensible management, most LIR's create reverse
delegations at RIPE using the FQHN of their nameservers. Without the
host-record glue already in place, resolvers won't be able to find that
PTR record.
c) not everyone wants the reverse to match the forward (is this an RFC
violation? I hope not :)).
d) this doesn't help the original problem where outdated glue blocks the
creation of correct glue.
J
