Re: draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:28:40 -0700
    From:        Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>
    Message-ID:  <FE914F7F-8A2D-11D6-AEEB-00039376A6AA@sun.com>

  | In v4-land, it is common to use automatically generated PTR for 
  | transient addresses.
  | in v6-land, with 6to4, a single IPv4 transient address will generate a 
  | /48 prefix, that is
  | 2^80 addresses. I doubt it is a good idea to generate that many records!

You don't generate that many records, you generate the NS records that
make the delegation, and inside the zone, the zone origin.  For this kind
of setup, all the contents of the zone are constant (or if they're
dynamic, it is just another instance of the same thing - not a part of
the same one).

  | My draft suggest to use wildcard PTR records. Does it makes sense?

No.   While technically they're allowed, they make no sense to actually
use.   PTR records (for this purpose) are useful only if there's some way
to verify them.

Of course, an option is simply to decide that we've had enough of PTR
records, and deprecate the things.   No, that's not what I mean at all.
PTR records themselves are fine, what I mean is to deprecate IP6.ARPA
(and IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.INT and everything else like it).

And I don't mean "replace it with icmp name lookups" - while those also
have a purpose (like the PTR record in the DNS) that purpose doesn't need
to be to answer the generic question "what is the name associated with
this address?"

What I mean is to not answer that question.   There doesn't seem to be
any good reason other than curiosity.   That is, "because I want to know".

Let's just trash the concept, make name->address a one way function, and
be done with all of this (which includes how we manage to find names for
3041 addresses, just in case someone doesn't see that as a totally stupid
question).

kre