ok. in that spirit:
top down delegation in reverse IPv6 works well to the ISP level.
ie, where delegation of responsibility over address resource follows
BCP, then the mechanism to perform DNS reverse management follows in
a natural manner. We do this. It works.
it doesn't look to scale well for dynamic edge-host registration
without confronting some inherently non-scaleable problems: /64
(and /32 Ipv4 holders) don't have a sane way to promote themselves
into the process if more than one intermediate layer of address
resource holder doesn't want to participate. There are very real
issues with the probity of taking an edge resource claim, and
lodging DNS reverse over the head of an intermediate resource
manager.
synthesized DNS looks to maybe offer ways out of this, the fusion
of the ideas would suggest that down to the level of some address
resource holder, a mechanism for dynamic synthesis on-the-fly would
be interesting. Its not clear how DNSSEC would work over this.
6to4 will scale well for large, centrally managed stable-IPv4 located
gateways. dyanmic (short lifetime) services fall into one of the
problems noted above.
some people clearly want reverse. Few people who are providing
registration services, or writing applications, place much value in
it, but thats subjective. as long as its wanted, and community
supports the overheads, there is no reason to stop. but we do need
to be clear where the limits lie on what its offering.
I'll keep my subjective personal view that we should stop. Nothing
you said Ed, appears to contradict the reasons why I think that.
cheers
-George
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
