Hi John, Thanks for the info and background.
One operational suggestion I have is … why link synthesis rules to a specific DNS zone? Most larger operators of auth DNS use an IP management tool, like BT Diamond IPAM, BlueCat, or Infoblox. Oftentimes, allocations of IP space will not be on classful boundaries, yet most often reverse DNS zones are on classful boundaries. What may be more operationally useful would be an (optional) feature in auth DNS software that would process an incoming PTR request as follows: 1. Answer the PTR with an entry in the corresponding ip6.arpa or in-addr.arpa zone file if the PTR exists 2. Otherwise, examine a rule set of synthetic PTR responses and answer by the rule set (e.g. 10.0.0.128 matches rule for “10.0.0.128/27” and returns PTR of 10-0-0-128.dhcp.example.com.) 3. Otherwise, return NXDOMAIN or NOANSWER/NOERROR as appropriate Such a ruleset could apply to forward zones as well to create the matching forward lookup. Just my two cents! Caveat: personal opinion and not the official position of Charter. Andrew Ληdrеw Whiте Charter Network Operations - DAS DNS Desk: 314-394-9594 - Cell: 314-452-4386 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Woodworth, John R [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:04 PM To: White, Andrew; '[email protected]' Cc: Ballew, Dean; Woodworth, John R Subject: RE: IPv6 automatic reverse DNS -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of White, Andrew > > There are two competing drafts for synthetic rule-based PTR responses > for IPv6 rDNS: > > Howard Lee, Time Warner Cable (now Charter) > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-08 > > J. Woodworth, CenturyLink > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-woodworth-bulk-rr/ > > Nominum and Xerocole/Akamai also have proprietary solutions to this > in their Vantio AuthServ and AuthX products, respectively. > > It seems to me that it is still an open question whether the > recommendations in RFC-1912 that any IP address that accesses the > Internet should have a PTR and matching forward record. My personal > thoughts are that the best solution would be an OPTIONAL standards-based > method of generating DNS responses based on a ruleset if a specific zone > record is not present, and that implementation of that requirement > should be left to the developers of the auth nameserver software. Greetings Andrew, I am new to the group but one of the authors referenced above. My colleagues and I are glad to see the discussion around this issue see some recent movement. As indicated by one of our esteemed WG chairs elsewhere in this thread, I am currently working to provide additional clarity for some of the more difficult concepts in the draft and have not yet requested the next step. Once these changes are complete we will enthusiastically move forward with this request. As I am new to this forum, for the moment I wanted to simply state: synthesized records based on the proposed "bulk rr" method can _only_exist_where_zone_records_do_not_already_. One critical goal of the draft is to make the "intent" of synthesized records easy to transfer between nameservers in authoritative roles. Examples for implementing the draft using fairly straightforward regex manipulation are included but are more of a guideline for making the pattern substitution easier for the implementor and provide a reference for the accompanying examples. Ultimately, as you recommend, the auth nameserver software vendor would be free to provide their own pattern substitution logic (so long as the intent is not lost). DNSSEC for synthesized records also poses its own obvious set of… complications for which we've outlined a number of solutions to help satisfy this challenge. Admittedly, it is a bit of a hefty read but we would love the feedback (directly or in the IETF DNSOP mailing list of course). Thanks, John Woodworth > > Andrew > > Caveat: These thoughts are mine personally and do not represent > any official position of Charter Communications. > > > Ληdrеw Whiте > Charter Network Operations - DAS DNS > Desk: 314-394-9594 ? Cell: 314-452-4386 > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER: This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
