Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

>
> > inconvenient, or in other cases (I have some) where multihomed mailservers
> > have different forward and reverse names, so the while there are in-addr
> > records, they don't match as the small contingent thinks they ought.  Of
>
> And there is no reason for it as DNS also has provisions for that case:
>     $ dig -x 195.30.254.85

This returns a long list of PTR records, indicating which customers are on
this host. That is clearly undesirable for my case--I don't want to give
out that information. So there is a good reason for it in my example.

And frankly, your competitors will no doubt find the list of your
customers useful. Perhaps you want to rethink that long PTR list. And at
some point, it will be too big for a UDP reply.  I hadn't even thought
about that until I looked at your big list.  Then what?

There is really a lot wrong with such a proposal than first catches the
eye.

		--Dean

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