Re: [RETRANSMIT] Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stopdoingreverse for IPv6.

[Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>]

At 12:44 PM -0500 2003/03/21, Kevin Darcy wrote:

>  Not in and of itself, no, but our increased, multi-decade knowledge
>  of the uses and abuses of reverse DNS does alter the original
>  cost-benefit analysis'es inputs, to the point where reverse DNS now
>  seems like more pain than gain, at least with respect to end-nodes,
>  and/or at least with respect to IPv6, which is going to increase
>  the "pain" without any corresponding anticipated increase in
>  "gain".

	It's still valuable for servers, IPv6 or not.  I don't think 
anyone can argue that it's not.

	Granted, it is more difficult for dial-up users and other people 
using dynamic addresses, but we can fix this problem.  Moreover, the 
DNSUPDATE protocol needs to be fixed anyway, to handle the issue of 
dynamically creating new zones.

>          So maybe it's time to let go of the old baggage and start
>  anew.

	I'm sorry.  I see reasons for fixing the DNS protocol, some of 
which may involve IPv6, but I see no justification whatsoever for us 
to simply abdicate our responsibility and recommend that people stop 
doing something just because it's difficult.

-- 
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>.