Hi George, and all. I've just caught up on this thread, and it strikes me that there is (it seems) an operational gap with the omission of the problem statement.
On 3/11/2014 2:36 pm, "George Michaelson" <g...@algebras.org> wrote: [snip] > >We don't have any failure to delegate the parent blocks facing down: Its >people's willingness to invest energy on the various different approaches >to the sub-delegation engines inside your own block management, be it >embedded in the NMS or some kind of > customer facing provisioning web portal or whatever. Problem 1: Operator unwillingness to invest energy to the sub-delegation engines [snip] > >Personally, and it is only my personal view, I like some of the older >ideas for semi-machine generated and wildcarded reverse I saw presented >at the RIPE ROME meeting. And I see some value in sign-on-the-fly work. Problem 2: uniform generation of PTR (with the presumption that they are useful in some form) > > >I think rDNS remains potential for big value. I can't verbalize it well, >but it has qualities about trust which for me could be useful. Its >volountarist nature is a huge counter argument as you've all exposed >here: can't depend on it. coverage is low. Problem 3: The non-specific non-commital approach (or lack thereof) to coverage by operators. Problem 4: The inability to document 'big value' or trust qualities in reverse DNS. I see the use of reverse DNS as various forms of blacklisting/whitelisting or similarly adjudicating the reputation of a TCP connection (SMTP or otherwise) an interesting approach to remove a level of pain (where pain levels are individually variable). I don't necessarily believe this evolution has legs, but I don't believe they are very long. Suffice to say that I've used that as a pain fix in past, but now question its scale going forward for IPv6. I don't mind the concept of stable services addresses having stable and well formed reverse. However in a customer realm, see Problem 1 closely followed by problem 3. As to utility? I've stopped looking at reverse DNS, as a quality, and as an information source. Really, if I want to get a sense of who and where I tend to look toward whois/rdap and a sh ip bgp <blah> and look to the ASN. So as a sales job trying to sell reverse DNS IPv6 to the masses, and that isn't the IETF's job IMHO, we won't be living well on the commission. As to the IETF's job of documenting the problem, and then a possible solution for the operational aspects - I think that worth putting cycles toward, however I don't see that it will be at all easy. If this thread is any indication. Cheers Terry
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
