On 6 Jul 2008, at 18:16, Dean Anderson wrote:
Oh yeah--That's right. 32 levels--Much worse than I said.
No. To reiterate the point that I saw Fred making...
I wrote up
many of the issues with reverse dns about 1.5 years ago. I submitted
it
to the IETF, but there was no interest in publishing this information.
http://www.av8.net/draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-01.txt
The following example was taken from RFC3596:
4321:0:1:2:3:4:567:89ab
would be
b.a.
9.8.7.6.5.0.4.0.0.0.3.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4.IP6.
ARPA.
... such a PTR record would most likely be obtained by following four
(root -> ip6.arpa -> RIR sever -> LIR server -> assignee server) or
three (root -> ip6.arpa -> RIR server -> assignee server) delegations.
I doubt this is substantially different, in aggregate, from IPv4.
You seem to be confusing label boundaries with zone cuts in your
"analysis".
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
