nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 rDNS


From: David Freedman <david.freedman () uk clara net>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:48:49 +0000

Lee Howard wrote:
Since there's a thread here, I'll mention rDNS for residential users.

I'm not sure there's consensus about whether forward and reverse ought
to match (how strong a "should" is that?).  I know you can't populate
every potential record in a reverse zone, as in IPv4.  You can generate
records on the fly, or just not provide PTRs.

I've described options in draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-04 but I'm not sure
enough people care whether it's published as an RFC.  Discuss on 
IETF's dnsop list.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Presuming that signed wildcarding in ip6.arpa is achieveable under
DNSSEC  (use of the LABELS field), would be interested in anybody other
than IRC operators who feel they still require forward and reverse DNS
to match,

I feel this preferable than either not providing PTRs or dynamically
creating them on query (which would be cool but another headache DoS
vector to manage well)

Thoughts?


-- 


David Freedman
Group Network Engineering
Claranet Group



Current thread: