At Wed, 13 May 2015 09:02:25 -0700, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> > I’m revising draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns again. Several folks have said > > something like, “There should be no expectation that a residential ISP > > will populate PTRs for all of its customers.” When I started this > > document, five or six years ago, there didn’t seem to be consensus on > > that point. I hear a lot of support for it these days, and disdain for > > people who rely on PTRs. (I think we generally agree that PTRs for > > servers are good). > > > > Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their > > customers? > > i can't judge consensus, but i would join one on this point. > manufacturing PTR RR's for every IoT device we connect is crazy talk. in > 1995 or so william simpson proposed an ICMP message to ask an endpoint > its name, and at the expected density, this is still a better plan for > anything that's not a server. (maybe an off-topic for this thread but FYI) We have a "standard" of this for IPv6: RFC4620. Unfortunately it's mostly useless in practice since it MUST be refused for global use by default. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
