reverse DNS considered pointless was: [6bone] Fwd: BCP 80, RFC 3681 on Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA

[Anand Kumria]

Hi Gert,

On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 07:06:42PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Chuck Yerkes wrote:
> > > >On a better topic, I hope this gets there real quick
> > > >because then we can simply turn of ip6.int and *FORCE*
> > > >application vendors to do ip6.arpa support in their code.
> > 
> > I say we rise up and rebel.  I used arpa net.  20+ years
> > ago.  I'd dance to see the arpa TLD die.  INT is a fine place
> > to end 6 addresses in.
> 
> While I understand your sentiments, I don't think this would be overly
> helpful.  This stupid ip6.int/ip6.arpa power play has been going on for
> way too long, and we really should take the pragmatic way and just 
> accept what is written in the RFC now (ip6.arpa), even if we don't like
> it.

Fair enough -- how another then (-;

> Reopening that can of worms will just delay useful reverse DNS deployment
> even further.

What useful reverse DNS deployment? Can you usefully assign reverse for
systems using the privacy extensions? Look at IPv4 to see how hard it
for people to manage < 2^8 in address for reverse, do you really expect
people with 2^64 (or more) addresses to cope?

I think the power play has actually been really beneficial -- a lot more
ISPs have realised that reverse DNS is fundamentally pointless, even
more so in the Brave New World of IPv6.

The other cool thing about the power play has been highlighting the cliq
involved. Previously it was all somewhat behind the scenes -- at least
this (terminably long) event has brought most of those involved out into 
the open.

Anand

-- 
 `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
 When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never
 leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada