[91708] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS Contact
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (william(at)elan.net)
Thu Aug 10 04:12:22 2006
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net>
Cc: Michael J Wise <mjwise@kapu.net>, nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <44DA75D8.60707@sorbs.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> This is also why I took the time to create:
>>>
>>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt>
The reason I do not like RDNS naming scheme is because it forces
one particular policy as part of the name. This is absolutely not
expendable and incorrect architecture as RDNS is general concept
for use with any number and types of protocols. What needs to be
done is that policy record is associated with an address or name
itself. The record can be a policy for specific protocol or maybe
a general records that can support policies for multiple protocols.
My preference is that you lookup RDNS name and they do additional
lookup when you do need a policy information (this can for example
be done with SPF record). Others have advocated putting policy
record as TXT directly in IN-ADDR zone which is ok as well though
I think PTR name is better because it allows to collect related
names together and list with one policy (kind of like common
static name schemes in fact).
> The idea being a common but extensible naming scheme for organisations
> want to specify generic/generated records rather than go to the hassle
> of creating individual records for each customer/host.
If you generate a record you might as well generate some other record
to go along with it, not that difficult.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net
