Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation
Woodworth, John R
John.Woodworth at CenturyLink.com
Sat Aug 27 20:57:37 UTC 2016
> > 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.
I respectfully disagree. I, although naturally biased, feel
strongly our I-D is something which should have existed since the
beginning of DNS. It allows address space to be "tagged" and
organized in a manner that just makes sense.
Imagine if you will a class-A (borrowing from legacy terminology)
being assigned to ARIN. This block is "tagged" as ARIN's IP space
in its entirety. A smaller block gets assigned to ISP-1 and it
gets "tagged" as ISP-1's, again in its entirety.
I understand rwhois exists but it is much more complicated to manage
than DNS and for the most part is only used at the RIR level for
reverse IP namespace.
> But again, at M3AAWG, this seems to be a settled topic. Anyone
> who expects rDNS for dynamic IPv6 addresses is an outlier.
Again, although I cannot speak on behalf of M3AAWG I respectfully
disagree with this being a problem only for outliers.
I think since a lot of the numbers in the IPv6 network ranges seem
close enough to infinity they scare people and it is simply easier
to pretend none of it is real. I can see this topic circling back
until a solution can be adopted.
> PS: Have you figured out how to do DNSSEC on dynamically generated
> reverse zones, both for results that return PTR and results that
> return NXDOMAIN?
> It's possible but it's not trivial.
Yes, and "it's not trivial" is quite the understatement :)
-- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER:
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
More information about the bind-users