> Paul Ebersman <mailto:list-dn...@dragon.net> > Saturday, November 01, 2014 8:08 PM > ... > > Hate to rain on your parade but this isn't going to happen.
that's what folks told me about source address validation when they heard about SAC004. my quest continues. > I don't even know how many broken sites there are and I don't care to > waste valuable staff time tilting at this windmill. ... no worries. meanwhile i'm going to try to build an internet that can grow for 200 more years. that's not going to happen if all we ever do is add layers and complexity. if PTR's are silly, then we have a responsibility to say so in writing, with an RFC number to point at, and we should begin what may be the several-lifetimes-long task of getting people to pay attention differently. i have little or no use for the world as it is, and i never have had. > Folks that find the current $GENERATE v4 stuff evil and untrustworthy > will find the v6 stuff no better. > > Folks trying limit spam will hopefully figure out something that doesn't > involve reputation by IPv6 addr, 'cause at 18 quadrillion per /64, that > won't scale... ain't it great? a lot of servers are going to demand PTR's for V6. this will force the number of SMTP senders to be small. i don't love the mechanism, but i can't quibble with the social impact. but, separately from that, if PTR's have high and low uses, we should document that, so that NYT (or whomever) can get some official guidance from the putative grownups. guidance which is sorely lacking on this topic today. the lack of such guidance being one of the reasons that the world is as we find it. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
