To:
Lars-Johan Liman <liman@sunet.se>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date:
Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:33:10 +0200
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:01:31 +0200." <20000815170131G.liman@sunet.se>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt
> And, yet again: I _really_ honestly want to know! I've been looking > for this reason for _years_, and so far my logical brain is > dissatisfied. I'm willing to accept going to a BCP if I hear many > voices saying that my demands are too high, so please speak up, > working group! :-) I agree that the BCP should motivate, not just demand reverse mapping. Two issues I mentioned in a private comment on an earlier version of this draft: o One reason for not providing reverse mapping is lack of knowledge of the ``classless delegation'' technique, which should be referenced in the document. In addition, some DNS server software does or did make this job harder. o Not providing reverse mapping increases the amount of DNS traffic and load on DNS servers, because negative responses are either not cached or cached for a shorter time than PTR answers. We're serving the reverse mapping for several /16 address ranges and see several peaks for non rev'mapped areas. Of course, this is not primarily a problem for end customers. -Peter