Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The supposed use case for ULA-C is large orgs who interconnect privately with other large orgs. If you _don't_ allow ULA-Cs in the global reverse DNS, then every org in the internetwork must hack their local DNS servers to recognize every other org's reverse DNS entries. That is painful and unnecessary.
To borrow your logic, if this space is truly private why should this be an issue?
There are operational concerns with putting ULA(-C) addresses in forward DNS; nobody argues with that. However, putting ULA-C addresses in reverse DNS harms nobody who can't reach those addresses yet greatly benefits those that can.
The delegation must be maintained and occasionally updated. Who does that?
Of course, if everyone just used PI, none of this would be an issue.
At this point it is plain to see that ULA-C is nothing but PI address space, because the IETF is in no position to enforce otherwise. So please, let's just call it what it is.
Eliot -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
