Wildcards in reverse DNS

dhottinger at harrisonburg.k12.va.us dhottinger at harrisonburg.k12.va.us
Thu Jan 4 13:25:00 UTC 2007

I just recently attended an ipV6 seminar that touted the great  
benefits and speed increase in ipV6.  I remained critical during the  
entire seminar.  What it essentially boiled down to is the city is  
getting ready to crank up a city wide wireless network using ipV6.   
Great for the city.  But if we are an island in the middle of all ipv4  
routers, all the traffic has to be encapsulated in ipv4 packets.   
Hence all speed increases are null because everything suddenly becomes  
ipv4 instead of ipv6.  I think the main reason they went with ipv6 was  
because of the availibility of ipv4 addresses.  Although NATING would  
handle the issue quite well.  I wouldnt think that every device would  
need a public ip.  Also IPv4 addresses were handed out quite willy  
nilly.  Some institutions own huge blocks of addresses and dont use  
them.  I have 3 class C's and only use a fraction of them.  But, I  
wont give them up.  Although my ISP is really eager for me to give  
some up.  If the internet continues to grow, IPv6 will just be a  
stopgap measure.  Those addresses are not infinite.


Quoting Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz>:

> At 2:18 -0800 1/4/07, Steve K. wrote:
>> I am curious, why are you using ipv6 in the first place? Aside from it's
>> eye appearance (I frankly find it difiuclt to make any sence of show
>> it's structured, where as ipv4 a.b.c.d is so easy to understand), why
>> would anyone want to use it? I really am curious.
> This really isn't the forum for this question.
> There's another answer out there already that I would could be
> simplified that IPv6 is just 96 more bits in address space.  A lot of
> the innovations introduced for IPv6 have already been rolled back
> into IPv4 (like IPSEC), and there are band-aids like NAT that
> alleviate other shortcomings.
> IPv4 won't allow the Internet to grow to a global scale.  (Contrary
> to reports, the Internet still has a lot of growth left.)  IPv6
> removes the address depletion factor.
> OTOH, whether IPv6 is still the answer (it was selected to replace
> IPv4 about 10 years ago) is something I question.  Route table
> capacity issues dog the technology and are the primary reason holding
> it back.
> So far, the dancing KAME turtle has been the only thing available on
> IPv6 that is not available on IPv4.  If a dancing turtle couldn't
> make IPv6 popular, what can?
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
> NeuStar
> Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch.

Dwayne Hottinger
Network Administrator
Harrisonburg City Public Schools

More information about the bind-users mailing list