To:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@sunet.se>
Date:
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:07:23 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<a05200f1aba9d8fe3da36@[10.0.1.2]>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.
--On Wednesday, March 19, 2003 04:09:42 +0100 Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> wrote: > At 9:07 AM +1000 2003/03/19, George Michaelson wrote: > >> Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6. > > Why? What's the problem with providing reverse DNS for IPv6? None, except that it is boring to manually calculate the addresses. But, we do have computers for that. (yes, I know it speaks of ip6.int, but I've mailed the author about that...) $ sipcalc -r 2001:490:f002:128:260:1dff:fe1d:1fcb -[ipv6 : 2001:490:f002:128:260:1dff:fe1d:1fcb] - 0 [IPV6 DNS] Reverse DNS (ip6.int) - b.c.f.1.d.1.e.f.f.f.d.1.0.6.2.0.8.2.1.0.2.0.0.f.0.9.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. I am all for continuing reverse DNS usage, if for nothing else to make traceroutes prettier. The practice of mandating it is different. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.