On 9/1/09 10:34 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Shane Kerr wrote:
Perhaps it makes sense to have two documents:
1. A document which says "you won't be able to pre-populate in IPv6
reverse like you do in IPv4 - don't worry about it".
2. A document which says "if you want to provide IPv6 reverse for
some reason, here are a plethora of ways to do it".
Which is basically Doug's document, split into two. I think having two
makes sense, because otherwise we are confounding the pre-populating
issue with the issue of how to provide reverse in the brave, new IPv6
world.
FYI, it's not my document, I was simply bringing it to the attention
of those who (like me) were not at IETF75.
That said I think that your idea of splitting into 2 topics is a good
idea. I personally would also like to see less "political" commentary
on the value of rDNS.
This issue is largely about email acceptance policies.
Saying IPv6 reverse DNS is not considered a practical means to determine
legitimate IP address use needs to be either stated or refuted. DNS
timeouts already consume a large portion of MTA resources when
attempting to discover reverse DNS entries. When IPv6 forces use of
positive reputations, reverse DNS entries become superfluous. Negative
reputations within the IPv6 address space also seems impractical,
largely due to the scale of the space involved.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
