On Mon 08/Apr/2024 12:19:15 +0200 Gert Doering wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:10:57PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Delegations don't seem to be generated from the database. How is that
supposed to work?
They are, but maybe not for the highest level.
Like, 8.0.6.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa -
On Sun 07/Apr/2024 20:33:28 +0200 Gert Doering wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 01:44:45PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
If you care about rDNS, you need to find a better ISP that meets your
needs. Then tell the old one why you left.
That seems to be a problem in Italy these days - few ISPs offer
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:10:57PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Thanks, that apparently works. However, -T domain -d 2a02:: finds
> 0.0.0.0.2.0.a.2.ip6.arpa. It seems to prepend a variable number of zeroes
> and cite the wrong name servers (see queries below). Shouldn't it find
>
On Sun 07/Apr/2024 16:47:37 +0200 Semisol via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
On 7.04.2024 15:42, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
BTW, how should one search DB objects like 2.0.a.2.ip6.arpa? I can search it
in the DNS but not in https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query
-T domain -d
I believe you can also
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 01:44:45PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
> If you care about rDNS, you need to find a better ISP that meets your
> needs. Then tell the old one why you left.
That seems to be a problem in Italy these days - few ISPs offer IPv6
at all, so finding one that does IPv6 *and*
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>On Sat 06/Apr/2024 19:54:27 +0200 Randy Bush wrote:
> Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number
> assignment?
Because your ISP can't be bothered.
>>> Is such unbotherability legitimate?
>RIPE could at least reproach those
On 7.04.2024 15:42, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
BTW, how should one search DB objects like 2.0.a.2.ip6.arpa? I can
search it in the DNS but not in https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query
-T domain -d
I believe you can also use the more/less specific flags with that query
but I didn't try.
On Sat 06/Apr/2024 19:54:27 +0200 Randy Bush wrote:
Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number
assignment?
Because your ISP can't be bothered.
Is such unbotherability legitimate?
these years, it is one of the things when considering a provider from
which one gets address
>>> Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number
>>> assignment?
>> Because your ISP can't be bothered.
> Is such unbotherability legitimate?
these years, it is one of the things when considering a provider from
which one gets address space.
part of the problem is that this used
On Sat 06/Apr/2024 17:23:27 +0200 Gert Doering wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 11:52:45AM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Fri 05/Apr/2024 20:19:59 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number assignment?
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 11:52:45AM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 05/Apr/2024 20:19:59 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
> > > Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number assignment?
> >
> > Because your ISP can't be bothered.
>
On Fri 05/Apr/2024 20:19:59 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number assignment?
Because your ISP can't be bothered.
Is such unbotherability legitimate?
I appreciate the fact that my provider endowed me
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number assignment?
Because your ISP can't be bothered.
I have a free /48 from Hurricane and they delegated the rDNS as part
of the setup so it's not like it's unusual or difficult. Delegating
IPv6
I do not expect you
to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
From: Alessandro Vesely
Date: Friday, 5 April 2024 at 16:24
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight , anti-abuse-wg
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Reverse DNS delegations
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments
working hours.
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Alessandro Vesely
Date: Friday, 5 April 2024 at 13:01
To: anti-abuse-wg
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Reverse DNS delegations
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised
sources.
Hi all,
what's the policy for reverse d
ient for me. I do not expect you
to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Alessandro
Vesely
Date: Friday, 5 April 2024 at 13:01
To: anti-abuse-wg
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Reverse DNS delegations
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when ope
Hi all,
what's the policy for reverse delegation? My provider assigned me a
2a02:29e1:500:6c00::/56. Great. However they didn't delegate reverse DNS.
Indeed, their own 2a02:29e1::/32 has no delegations:
; <<>> DiG 9.18.24-1-Debian <<>> 1.e.9.2.2.0.a.2.ip6.arpa ns
;; global options: +cmd
17 matches
Mail list logo
