> >> As far as I know there's no mechanism to delegate reverse DNS for a > >> locally generated ULA, since there's no "ownership".
> > Please read RFC 4193 section 4.4. > As I read RFC 4193 section 4.4, it confirms my previous understanding > that there is no mechanism (and should be no mechanism) for delegating > reverse DNS for a locally generated ULA. To my mind, this is a reason > for adopting draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt: the registration of the > ULA-C blocks allows the registrar who is the registrar? > to delegate reverse DNS authority (to > servers with globally routable non-ULA addresses) while avoiding the > problems outlined in RFC 4193 section 4.4. none of this explains why it's not a simple RIR policy matter to create a new kind of PI space that's cheaper/easier to get due to the recommendation that it not be accepted into the DFZ. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
