Lee Howard wrote:
Since there's a thread here, I'll mention rDNS for residential users.
I'm not sure there's consensus about whether forward and reverse ought to match (how strong a "should" is that?). I know you can't populate every potential record in a reverse zone, as in IPv4. You can generate records on the fly, or just not provide PTRs.
I've described options in draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-04 but I'm not sure enough people care whether it's published as an RFC. Discuss on IETF's dnsop list. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Presuming that signed wildcarding in ip6.arpa is achieveable under DNSSEC (use of the LABELS field), would be interested in anybody other than IRC operators who feel they still require forward and reverse DNS to match, I feel this preferable than either not providing PTRs or dynamically creating them on query (which would be cool but another headache DoS vector to manage well) Thoughts? -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Group