I'm not confusing zone boundardies with label boundaries. 32 levels is
the worst case. In practice, it'll probably be much more than 3 or 4
levels, but probably in most cases fewer than 32. But it is widely
expected to be very problematic to maintain, and has always been
problematic to maintain, even in IPv4. Hence the efforts on
RFC1788(IPv4) and RFC4620(IPv6)
--Dean
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
