To:
plzak@arin.net
cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
Date:
Wed, 08 Aug 2001 23:41:06 +1000
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:29:10 -0400." <000301c11f88$00c1d1c0$b3d9bbd4@plzak>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: comment on draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-02.txt
> Providing servers for in-addr service is not the same as setting ptr records > for hosts. I agree that the managers of space on bit boundaries, ie, /8, > /16, and /24 should provide servers for those below them. The shorter the > prefix, the more important it is that the server be available. However, > this in no way obligates the end host to use the service, it merely gives > that host the option of using it. > > Ray Yep. thats fair. The problem is that for the case where the /24 doesn't do it the /16 holder cops the problem: so it an indirect effect on somebody else and usually a small number of somebody else! (and obviously the same for the /8 holder for a /16 not running server) So if you modify the sense of my comment to be that bit-boundary aligned space-owners SHOULD provide servers, I strongly agree. -George