>And if I used a generation method for v6 that exactly matched v4, I'd >just get caught in exactly the same filters, right?
No. There are a zillion formats for generic v4 rDNS names. Most of them embed some version of four octets of the IP address, so for v6 it would of necessity be different. Also keep in mind that doing generic rDNS for v6 requires awful kludges of some sort. For v4 you can generate it statically and forget about it but for v6 you need a stunt server that synthesizes names on the fly, or a hack in the router that inserts entries into the reverse zone when it sees traffic from a host, or something. The kludges add no value, so let's not. My preference is that hosts that are supposed to be globally visible servers or mail clients should have static addresses with static forward and reverse DNS. Other hosts use SLAAC and have neither. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
