-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Shane Kerr wrote: > > The cost of maintaining IPv6 reverse information is significantly higher than > in > IPv4, and the benefits are even less. > > I'm sorry if this will make the IESG unhappy, but RFC 4472 only reinforces > this. > > Does everyone on this list disagree with me?
So, to answer my own question, "yes". :) Andrew: In the end I guess it's best to refer to RFC 4472, if you need to include ip6.arpa in this document. One final thing to think about on my way out the door from this thread after being beaten with varying degrees of gentleness by the group: Does anybody on this list have a /48 or /64 delegation? Does anybody also have a working reverse DNS setup from their provider? (For me, it's "yes" and "no".) I've used IPv6 in a few different environments, and have never seen a working reverse when stateless auto-configuration is used. Isn't it weird to recommend people implement a practice that is rare (or non-existent)? - -- Shane -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFPwnRMsfZxBO4kbQRAvRfAJoCRm7DUsyJ5KznquOwr5g7Iewi9QCdGkYZ FqV7+TWThLkP3XDQX0WdCMI= =s6n3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
