Wildcards in reverse DNS

[dhottinger at harrisonburg.k12.va.us]

Actually I want to give up all but one of my Class C's, but management  
wont let me.  So, hence I am part of the problem, but not by my own  
doing.  I inherited most of what I have, and although it works quite  
well there are several things Im working on changing that being one.   
I agree that ipv6 has quite a few good things, but I am not quite sure  
it is the answer to the problem.  I think the US goverment has already  
implemented ipv6, they use it extensively for troop communications in  
IRAQ.  Yea, chicken and egg.  But with quite a bit of cost associated  
with it.  Which is why Im taking a wait and see approach.  As I remove  
equipment and install new, the new will be ipv6 compat.  I know its  
coming.  No way around it.

Quoting Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au>:

> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:25 -0500, dhottinger at harrisonburg.k12.va.us
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The islands will join up. It's a chicken and egg thing. IPv4 started out
> as islands too, don't forget, and it had competition from many other
> protocols, whereas IPv6 has competition really only from IPv4.
>
> People can win a lot from IPv6 without having IPv6 connectivity to the
> Internet. Autoaddressing, IPSEC, no broadcasts, VAST private address
> space, etc.
>
>>   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.
>
> NAT is a Bad Thing for the Internet. It is a classic
> treat-the-symptom-not-the-disease response, and while it has saved our
> bacon for now, the waters are still rising...
>
>>   I wouldnt think that every device would need a public ip.
>
> Even quite small organisations are running out of *private* address
> space. IPv6 delivers a vast amount of private address space too...
>
> Don't fall for what Richard Dawkins calls the Argument from Personal
> Incredulity. The fact that you don't see it, don't get it, don't
> understand it, don't believe it, don't want it or don't need it doesn't
> prove anything. We cannot imagine what things the future will dream up
> to do with almost unlimited address space.
>
>>   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.
>
> That's the problem, thanks for being part of it. There are people
> sitting on largely empty /8 (!) and /16 networks who won't give them up
> either.
>
>>   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.
>
> No, and there are already disturbing signs both of incompetence in
> applying for stupidly large spaces and worse, of incompetence in
> allocating stupidly large spaces. And of outright land-grabbing. The US
> Government, for example, wanted an IPv6 /8 network. All for itself.
>
> We will need to be *extremely* profligate with addresses to put a dent
> in that vast address space. Sadly some people are already being
> extremely profligate.
>
> Regards, K.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)
>
>
>



-- 
Dwayne Hottinger
Network Administrator
Harrisonburg City Public Schools