John R. Levine wrote: > > Just curious, is there a fundamental reason you have to oppose this > > beyond simply the scale? > > It's a cargo cult style extension of a not particularly useful IPv4 > convention to IPv6. A much more useful convention that happens to be easier > to implement is that hosts with static addresses have rDNS and hosts without > do not. That would be a lot more useful to all involved.
Though, if you want to participate in the cargo cult of generic PTRs, you don't need the complexity of draft-woodworth-bulk-rr's regex-driven templates in your nameserver. Knot DNS's "minimal viable product" implementation is ~300 SLOC and uses a hardcoded template. -- Robert Edmonds _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users