Re: What problem were we trying to solve again? (was Re: RadicalSurgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6.)

[Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@sunet.se>]

--On Thursday, March 27, 2003 23:56:10 +0900 "JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
wrote:

> For example, the address to name mapping for traceroute can be
> provided by ICMP node information messages (of course, it depends on
> whether intermediate routers support and allow the ICMP, and reply a
> useful node name.  But similar arguments apply to DNS reverse mapping
> as well.)

I think you will find *much* more ICMP blocking than DNS blocking. People
are afraid of ICMP but realise that they need DNS to surf the web. 

> Regarding messages from George, if we can move to a slightly different
> operation which is less dependent on reverse mapping, some of his
> frustration (e.g., load of top level servers) might be mitigated.  On
> that point I think my points is related to his message.

I run a box that has:

11 slave /8
21 master /16
55 slave /16
2 master /32 v6
12 slave /32 or shorter prefixes. 

and it does receive a fair amount of traffic regarding these, though I do
not see the problem. Granted, it is mainly slaves, so they "just work", but
running it is not very hard or resource-consuming. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

PGP signature