On 2003-03-20 05:08:25 +1000, George Michaelson wrote: > > 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.
Since we apparently don't consider a /128 to be the goal of reverse DNS, maybe the goal should be to define a reverse that has the option of giving a CIDR block as the match. That seems easy enough. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
