> TLemon> The status quo is that the ISP doesn't add a PTR record for a > TLemon> customer IPv6 address, nor delegate the zone. Lots of IPv6 > TLemon> users are getting by just fine right this very moment (including > TLemon> me) without this. So I think it's safe to say that we do not > TLemon> need to solve this problem: if there is damage, it has already > TLemon> been routed around. > > This is a lovely thought. And I really hope it's true. I've thought > since the early 90s that most things we did with PTRs other than network > interfaces were questionable usefulness for pain that we're still > dealing with supporting. > > However, I'm concerned that this (v6 working fine without already) is > just as much an unsupported assumption as that we must support PTRs for > content with no good data (other than various anecdotal stories) and no > idea of what would break if we didn't do them.
To me this is really simple: If many/most ISPs continue *not* adding useless/artificial/synthesized PTRs, the content / server people will have no choice - if they want their content to get out and their services to be used by the large majority of IPv6 users, they'll have to accept connections from IPv6 addresses without PTRs. > I would still like to see: > > - actual data on how/where PTRs are being used and abused now (beyond > the known mail filtering) to see if any of those folks are planning > on continuing the bad idea into v6 Speaking only for myself: We're not planning to add useless IPv6 PTRs. Steinar Haug, AS2116 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
