On Mar 31, 2012 2:30 PM, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There was some minor discussion in the WG about whether reverse DNS was > needed at all for home networks. > > I want to make the case that humans should not have to deal with IPv6 > addresses. Furthermore, while one certainly can't make authorization > decisions based upon reverse DNS, for non-malicious nodes, the audit > record of having a node tell you *something* is valuable. >
But then the nodes in homenet are no longer anonymous, and that may be a security / privacy concern, no? Cb > Use case: ISP complains about some activity (maybe a compromised host) > Saturday afternoon weeks ago. The reported IPv6 is not known to you. > You look at the *(m)DNS* logs (which aren't really that big), and you an > entry for: "Mary-Perkins-Laptop". You know that your daughter has a > friend named Mary. Was she visiting you ask. Aha... now you know what > the problem is. > > Double use case: since the ISP delegated the reverse to you, when they > reported a problem to you, it actually said, "Mary.perkins.name" in the > report, and thus you knew everything without even consulting your logs. > > -- > ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ > ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ > Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE> > then sign the petition. > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
