Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

> If people were to think "I'm spending money to make other peoples life
> easy", I can't see why they would follow any IETF "standards" at all.
> Most cost manpower to maintain.

Yep. People ignore important stuff all the time simply because they don't
see any direct benefit from doing what's best for the network as a whole.
There are loads of ISPs who are using private addresses on network
interfaces that are publically accessible, for example, which is not only
bad form but which is potentially harmful in many situations.

In this regard, a BCP could help to elevate awareness of proper management
of the PTR space, but I seriously doubt it will have any measurable
impact. At best, a few organizations will be told that the Internet wishes
they would do such and such, but overall there would be no significant
impact. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though.

There are absolute benefits from properly managing the PTR space. All a
BCP has to do is itemize them, point out alternate uses such as the
1101-style network PTRs, point out issues such as public addresses being
unresolvable on the public Internet and that all PTRs are succeptible to
spoofing, and generally act as a generic target for "this is what is
suggested by the Internet community" referrals for folks with complaints.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/