On Nov 9, 2014, at 11:57 PM, Paul Ebersman <list-dn...@dragon.net> wrote:
Sorry, I replied to a message prior to your reply to me, and so I sort of answered these points, but just to clarify: > - service providers who want a way to avoid breaking things for > customers while not being operationally complicated/insane > > Doing autogen'd PTRs in v6 violates the anti-spam folks' needs. Not > having any PTR at all for consumers potentially violates the ISP needs. > > Things I don't know that anyone knows for sure but make it hard to reach > consensus on a solution: > > - what are the various interesting/crazy/insane uses PTRs in v4 now > (beyond the mail req of forward/reverse existing and matching), > i.e. what will break now and in the future if there are no v6 PTRs > for consumer IPs if content providers do the same uses in v6 > > - how much is the current v4 autogen being done by ISPs truly breaking > mail/spam, how/when/how-soon will it explode and how much additional > stress/breakage would doing v6 autogen add So it's not clear to me that there is a problem reaching consensus on what we should do. It's not even clear to me (as I explained in my previous message) that there is a problem or a pain point here for IPv6. It's pretty clear to me that the only sensible thing the IETF could do would be to say "this isn't a problem, please don't add fake PTR records." And then ISPs would do whatever they do, regardless of what we recommend. My hope is that they would not _anticipate_ a problem that does not actually exist, and create complex wonderfulness in their DNS architecture purely to solve that possibly nonexistent problem. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
