Hello, Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400, Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't > > answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: "why *should* one > > provide reverse mappings for all IP addresses they manage? (despite > > the cost of the provision)?". > > I'd like to get a better understanding of your concern. > Is it that you don't understand why one should, or that the document > doesn't include the answer itself? I guess it's both, but the more important point in this context for me is the latter. > In other words, if someone on the list answers the question, without > that changing the document, > would you then support it based on your new-found understanding? You probably mean whether the main point is the former, and if so, I'm afraid I wouldn't. I'd first like to be convinced about why one should, and (since I don't think it's well described in the current document) I'd then like the draft to reflect it. I'm now planning to respond to your other points, but before doing so please let me jump to one specific point. That might make the other things marginal. > > Also Section 4.2 > > > > Unless there are strong counter-considerations, such as a high > > probability of forcing large numbers of queries to use TCP, IP > > addresses in use within a range and referenced in a forward mapping > > should have a reverse mapping. > > > > I failed to understand this sentence. Does this mean > > > > IP addresses that are > > - in use within a range, and > > - referenced in a forward mapping > > should have a reverse mapping. > > > > > This one - if *both* conditions are met. Okay. Then let me discuss one specific address: "2001:4f8:3:bb:58ec:1cae:5433:2ee3". It's a temporary (in terms of RFC4941) address of my laptop created from another IPv6 address that is configured via stateless address autoconfiguration. As far as I know, there is no forward mapping (i.e., AAAA RR) whose rdata is this address. So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a forward mapping". Does this mean this address is not covered by the above sentence of Section 4.2? Referring to the Andrew's response: At Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:42:34 -0400, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > or something else? In either case, does this mean we don't have to > > provide reverse mappings for addresses that are NOT referenced in a > > forward mapping? > > No. We added this text exactly to address your previous objection > that the text appeared to be requiring that every IP address anybody > uses has to have a reverse map, which is absurd since every IP address > in use doesn't need to have a forward map. I'm still not sure...The "No" seems to say this temporary address is still covered by this sentence, but the following sentence seems to indicate the opposite. Could either of you clarify this point? Thanks, --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
