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

[Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>]

On 2003-03-20 05:08:25 +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> 
> 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.

Since we apparently don't consider a /128 to be the goal of reverse
DNS, maybe the goal should be to define a reverse that has the option
of giving a CIDR block as the match.  That seems easy enough.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.