(resending it from a different mail address...)

>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:53:05 +0200, 
>>>>> Shane Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>> 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?

On one hand, I agree that maintaining IPv6 reverse mappings is more
difficult than for IPv4, and that why it is so may not always be a
minor detail.

On the other hand, I see reverse mappings provide useful information
(whether it's for IPv4 or IPv6) in some cases such as in traceroute
output.  So, I'm fine with encouraging operators to maintain reverse
mappings.

In my opinion, the problem is not whether to encourage maintaining
reverse mappings; it's why we encourage so.  As long as we understand
a reverse mapping is an optional hint which may or may not be
available, encouraging the maintenance of the mappings does no harm.
However, if we heavily rely on the existence of a reverse mapping such
as in some form of authentication, the difficulty of deploying IPv6
reverse mappings will cause more serious troubles.

So I think this is actually a matter of different issue:

5.      The recommendations in section 4 are not strong enough.
(which was in the original issue list given in
http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg03661.html)

It's not directly related to the "IP version" issue, so I'll make a
separate thread on this point.

> So, to answer my own question, "yes". :)

BTW:

> 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".)

For me, the answer is yes and yes, although not all IPv6 addresses in
use under the /48 prefix are registered in our reverse mapping domain.

                                        JINMEI, Tatuya
                                        Communication Platform Lab.
                                        Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
                                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

Reply via email to