Re: What problem were we trying to solve again? (was Re: Radical

[Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>]

jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (JINMEI Tatuya / ¿ÀÌÀãºÈ) writes:

> I wanted to see a consensus (if we can reach it) on how much we should
> (continue to) rely on reverse mapping.  In particular, I'd like to
> know cases where reverse mapping must be provided and other approaches
> cannot apply.

the reverse mapping function provided by PTR RR's in both ipv4 and ipv6
provides an unauthenticated but still useful indication of the strength of
the relationship between the operator of a network and the operator of a
host on that network.  icmp, for example, wouldn't do this.

very few host//network configuration errors shown by a failure in reverse
mapping are limited to just reverse mapping failures -- there's almost
always something else wrong, of which a reverse mapping failure is the
mere "tip of the iceberg."

problems related to maintaining the reverse mapping, either via synthesis
or dynamic update or preallocation or whatever, are really just problems
in trying to support a strong enough relationship between the operator of
a network and the operators of hosts on that network, if the number of
hosts grows the way we expect it to.  that's a technical problem, let's
solve it, rather than declaring a priori that the gain isn't worth the pain.
-- 
Paul Vixie

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