We've corresponded offline.
I documented the difficulties in providing reverse DNS for IPv6
residential users in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-06
It's a long-expired draft, which never found sufficient support from a WG
or AD. I've been meaning to rewrap it as a BCOP
On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
We've corresponded offline.
I documented the difficulties in providing reverse DNS for IPv6
residential users in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-06
It's a long-expired draft, which never found sufficient
On 6/13/14, 8:26 AM, James R Cutler wrote:
On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
We've corresponded offline.
I documented the difficulties in providing reverse DNS for IPv6
residential users in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-06
It's a long
Some IPv6 email is not working well for me on my TWC Internet connection
due to their IPv6 block not having PTR records.
Is it possible for me to delegate my IPv6 range to my own DNS server, or
something similar? I have talked to level 3 support and they were pretty
much clueless, so I decide to
If your IPv6 subnet is being allocated by TW, then it is up to them
whether or not to allow the customer to manage their own rDNS.
I have not asked about IPv6 with Comcast Business, but I know with
IPv4 IP blcks, they will turn the request around pretty quickly once
asked.
Robert
On Thu,
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 11:16 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Why were you letting such ill-configured clients register themselves in your
DNS?
Some environments have a lot of control over individual hosts, and
perhaps for such an environment, allowing hosts to register themselves
would not be a
2011/6/11 Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org
The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
segment what the local prefix and default route is. As such, there's no
reason why the router should try to register a DNS entry.
On the other hand, the host could (and
On 12 Jun 2011, at 09:38, Fabio Mendes wrote:
2011/6/11 Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org
The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
segment what the local prefix and default route is. As such, there's no
reason why the router should try to register a
dynamic dns update has been done by hosts for some time...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2136.txt
On Jun 12, 2011, at 5:38 AM, Fabio Mendes wrote:
2011/6/11 Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org
The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
segment what the local
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:30:26PM -0300, Fabio Mendes wrote:
The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
segment what the local prefix and default route is. As such, there's no
reason
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:38:32AM -0300, Fabio Mendes wrote:
2011/6/11 Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org
The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
segment what the local prefix and default route is. As such, there's no
reason why the router should try to
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:59:50AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
segment what the local prefix and default route is. As such, there's no
reason
On 6/12/2011 11:44 AM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I don't believe we were talking about DHCPv6, we were talking about SLAAC.
And I *still* think it's a better idea for the client to be registering
itself in DNS; the host knows what domain(s) it should be part of, and hence
which names refer to
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 01:44 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
And I *still* think it's a better idea for the client to be
registering itself in DNS; the host knows what domain(s) it should be
part of, and hence which names refer to itself and should be updated
with it's new address.
Having tried
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:46:20PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 6/12/2011 11:44 AM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I don't believe we were talking about DHCPv6, we were talking about SLAAC.
And I *still* think it's a better idea for the client to be registering
itself in DNS; the host knows what
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 09:56:59AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 01:44 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
And I *still* think it's a better idea for the client to be
registering itself in DNS; the host knows what domain(s) it should be
part of, and hence which names refer to
Hi guys,
Firstly, sorry if this may sound too newbie for the list. Reading the
discussion about dhcpv6 vs RAs, this question just popped in my mind.
It seems that most of IPv6 addressing for hosts will be choosed using EUI-64
method. Considering that no one (specially endusers) will bother to
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:30:26PM -0300, Fabio Mendes wrote:
Firstly, sorry if this may sound too newbie for the list. Reading the
discussion about dhcpv6 vs RAs, this question just popped in my mind.
It seems that most of IPv6 addressing for hosts will be choosed using EUI-64
method.
I would suggest to read RFC3901/BCP91: ³DNS IPv6 Transport Operational
Guidelines² on this topic.
- Alain.
On 6/21/09 5:45 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
In pratice, most clients are not their own recursive resolvers.
Rui Ribeiro racribe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve
Hi Steve,
An IPv6 only device can hit your server if all the DNS hierachy
resolves through IPv6. It works the same way as in IPv4.
Rui
2009/6/21 Steve Pirk or...@pirk.com:
Anyone have any experience with dns and ipv6? I did a lookup on a host and
it came back with only an ipv6 record. Also
On 21-Jun-2009, at 10:36, Rui Ribeiro wrote:
An IPv6 only device can hit your server if all the DNS hierachy
resolves through IPv6. It works the same way as in IPv4.
Resolves through IPv6 implies a mixture of IPv6 transport and RRSet
availability. To add some more details, you need:
-
Joe Abley wrote:
Some time ago I checked the ORG and INFO registries and discovered
that the number of host objects there with IPv6 address attributes was
very small. I presumed at the time that it was either hard to find a
registrar that would support IPv6 addresses for hosts, or that people
22 matches
Mail list logo
