Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.

[George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>]

ok. in that spirit:

	top down delegation in reverse IPv6 works well to the ISP level. 
	ie, where delegation of responsibility over address resource follows
	BCP, then the mechanism to perform DNS reverse management follows in
	a natural manner. We do this. It works.

	it doesn't look to scale well for dynamic edge-host registration
	without confronting some inherently non-scaleable problems: /64
	(and /32 Ipv4 holders) don't have a sane way to promote themselves 
	into the process if more than one intermediate layer of address
	resource holder doesn't want to participate. There are very real
	issues with the probity of taking an edge resource claim, and
	lodging DNS reverse over the head of an intermediate resource
	manager.

	synthesized DNS looks to maybe offer ways out of this, the fusion
	of the ideas would suggest that down to the level of some address
	resource holder, a mechanism for dynamic synthesis on-the-fly would
	be interesting. Its not clear how DNSSEC would work over this.

	6to4 will scale well for large, centrally managed stable-IPv4 located
	gateways. dyanmic (short lifetime) services fall into one of the
	problems noted above.

	some people clearly want reverse. Few people who are providing
	registration services, or writing applications, place much value in
	it, but thats subjective. as long as its wanted, and community 
	supports the overheads, there is no reason to stop. but we do need
	to be clear where the limits lie on what its offering.

	I'll keep my subjective personal view that we should stop. Nothing
	you said Ed, appears to contradict the reasons why I think that.

cheers
	-George
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.