Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation
Woodworth, John R
John.Woodworth at CenturyLink.com
Sat Aug 27 21:17:36 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.
Thanks for this information, it could really help the original poster.
It is true at first glance the regex-esque syntax in our I-D may seem a
bit complex but I don't believe anywhere near the complexity of NAPTR
and with adoption as a standard would not require the vendor-lock-in
of any proprietary solution. This is also huge if zone transfers are
important in your environment and you do not own/ manage all nameservers
> Robert Edmonds
-- 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