Woodworth, John R <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote: > > Wildcards are a good start, or at least they appear so on the surface. > > Unfortunately, the vagueness of their definition and various > implementations of wildcards would make this a poor choice.
Do you mean there are problems with RFC 4592? If so, what are they? Can you give us details, please? > Not to mention, wildcards will severely fragment the namespace once > real PTRs are introduced creating a rather fine mess. In what way? What do you mean by "fragmented"? A reverse lookup would get a generic wildcard PTR for unregistered addresses and a specific PTR for registered hosts. If you choose the PTR names sensibly then I don't think the namespace would be fragmented. The main disadvantage (same as BULK) is that it would screw up mail server anti-spam heuristics. > This would also add another level of complication and restrict the > layering capabilities we are attempting to introduce and would > inevitably prove far more problematic and resource intensive than > you might expect, simply to compensate for all the fragmentation. Can you unpack this in more detail please? What are these layering capabilities you refer to? Why do you think wildcards are more resource intensive than BULK? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Dover: Northwest 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Slight. Rain. Moderate or good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
