"Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alain Durand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 01:07:35PM -0500, Matt Crawford wrote:
> > > > Please remove the suggestion that DNS servers 'fabricate
> > > > "dummy" answers'! The alternative, that nodes register
> > > > random names, is fine.
> > >
> > > How about registering a PTR record for the prefix, if some server can't
> > > find a PTR record for the address, it could at least find out who owns
> > > the prefix. The result would be just as meaningful as a zone full of
> > > random names.
> > >
> > > Stig
> > My suggestion was to use a wildcard PTR record for the /64 subnet.
> > - Alain.
> That ought to do the trick.
Would it? I thought the basic problem is that some servers require
that a PTR record for an address point to a name, and that the
returned name also map back to the address being used. I.e, the issue
isn't just lack of a PTR record.
The current text in the draft still needs changing then though, as the
text that Matt asks to remove really needs to spell out that
"fabricate dummy answers" means for both the reverse and forward
directions. Not something I think is such a great idea.
So, unless I hear otherwise, I will remove the text as suggested.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
