Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > I also object to this part of the draft as well. IMHO, the registry should > > list who the registrant is for a particular prefix, but not allow non-exact > > searches. > > I think there are privacy and secrecy-by-hiding reasons why this most > likely won't happen, for *any* form of unrouted organizational addresses. > The escrow proposal is to allow this privacy to be bypassed in extreme > cases. > ... > By definition, organizational addresses are not used to "list" servers > outside the organization. Obviously, the organization's internal DNS will > have to treat these addresses as first-class citizens, but I can't see any > reason why we would expect reverse DNS for these things in the global > DNS.
My case is this: I believe many orgs will use "local" addresses to interconnect with other orgs via private links, but not via the Internet. In this case, it would be handy to _optionally_ have reverse DNS entries in the public servers so that the mesh of private orgs don't have to muck with adding each others' local address zones into all their DNS servers. Of course, this would be an optional feature for orgs registering local addresses, but I don't see a reason to _prohibit_ it. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
