To:
Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@sunet.se>
Cc:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Date:
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:06:29 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<916110000.1048054042@localhost.besserwisser.org>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.
At 7:07 AM +0100 2003/03/19, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> [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.
This isn't a name. This is just the label -- where does it point?
> I am all for continuing reverse DNS usage, if for nothing else to make
> traceroutes prettier.
>
> The practice of mandating it is different.
Is reverse DNS for IPv4 mandated? Why should IPv6 be treated any
differently in this respect?
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.