At 22:14 30/10/01, Michael Richardson wrote: >The major obstucle is the "IPtelcos"/CableCos >who aren't being very retinscent to actually let people being peers rather >than just client-consumers. There is, with dynamic DNS update no reason why >they should not permit people with "always-on" IPs to populate the reverse >DNS.
Secure Dynamic DNS Update does not actually work operationally in most deployed DNS systems, so I don't think that such an approach is operationally feasible today. Details of how/why Secure Dynamic DNS Update is problematic are best discussed on a mailing list devoted to DNSsec, IMHO. Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]