Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

Robert Edmonds edmonds at
Sat Aug 27 20:47:17 UTC 2016

John R. Levine wrote:
> > Just curious, is there a fundamental reason you have to oppose this
> > beyond simply the scale?
> It's a cargo cult style extension of a not particularly useful IPv4
> convention to IPv6.  A much more useful convention that happens to be easier
> to implement is that hosts with static addresses have rDNS and hosts without
> do not.  That would be a lot more useful to all involved.

Though, if you want to participate in the cargo cult of generic PTRs,
you don't need the complexity of draft-woodworth-bulk-rr's regex-driven
templates in your nameserver. Knot DNS's "minimal viable product"
implementation is ~300 SLOC and uses a hardcoded template.

Robert Edmonds

More information about the bind-users mailing list