At 22:14 30/10/01, Michael Richardson wrote:
>The major obstucle is the "IPtelcos"/CableCos
>who aren't being very retinscent to actually let people being peers rather
>than just client-consumers. There is, with dynamic DNS update no reason why
>they should not permit people with "always-on" IPs to populate the reverse
>DNS.
Secure Dynamic DNS Update does not actually work
operationally in most deployed DNS systems, so I don't
think that such an approach is operationally feasible
today.
Details of how/why Secure Dynamic DNS Update is
problematic are best discussed on a mailing list devoted
to DNSsec, IMHO.
Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
