> Em 13/05/2015, à(s) 12:05:000, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> escreveu: > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote: > >> Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their >> customers? > > No. > > As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6 > without PTR's, such a consensus would mean taking the ability away from > people running their own mail servers with IPv6 on ISP controlled IPv6. > > Without the PTRs, sadly those IPv6 addresses are not equal peers on the > internet, but only marginally better than a NATed IPv4 address.
I don't see why they would be exclusive. ISPs could have authority servers for all their assigned IPv6 space, but do not have records in the zone unless for users that specifically require them. So, for most usages which don't include running mail servers, there would be no records but a NXDOMAIN/NSEC/NSEC3 response will be provided in order for MTA to use in anti-spam decisions, closed systems authentication factor etc. If the user has a fixed IPv6 delegation (possibly a /64) and/or the provider has Dynamic DNS allowing a PTR to be populated by a dynamic IPv6 allocation (either the WAN address or a DHPC-PD allocated LAN address), then the provisioning system / processes would add a proper PTR for the user. What is useless is populating a gazillion of PTRs with an auto-generated pattern... and since the pattern is not standard, anti-spam designers have to chase whether is dynamic.provider.net or adsl.otherprovider.co.cc etc. Non-existent DNS is a standard way to say there is no information for that query. Rubens _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
