IPv6 automatic reverse DNS
suzworldwide at gmail.com
Sun Oct 30 13:47:56 UTC 2016
> On Oct 29, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Wesley George <wesgeorge at puck.nether.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 11:03 PM, White, Andrew <Andrew.White2 at charter.com> wrote:
>> There are two competing drafts for synthetic rule-based PTR responses for IPv6 rDNS:
>> Howard Lee, Time Warner Cable (now Charter)
>> J. Woodworth, CenturyLink
> At the risk of getting into IETF administrivia, a little clarification is important here: The first draft you mention above was replaced by the draft I referenced in my previous email. It is currently an adopted WG draft in DNSOP, moving toward working group last call as a consensus document., thus the window for capturing and incorporating feedback is closing soon. The second document does not appear to be associated with any IETF Working Group yet, but it also isn't competing with the first document. The first draft is informational status, discussing the issues and considerations surrounding this problem, of which generating on-the-fly reverse records is one possible solution. The second draft is a proposed standard defining *how* to generate those on-the-fly reverse records assuming one decides that is the right path to take in one's network, and would dovetail nicely via reference to section 2.5 of isp-ip6-rdns.
This is exactly right, and thanks for the clear explanation of arcane IETF process….
Comments on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-02.txt <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-02.txt> can go to Lee or the WG mailing list, dnsop at ietf.org <mailto:dnsop at ietf.org>. We’re trying to make it useful for operators, so having operators comment is *really* good….
The WG felt quite strongly that the document shouldn’t be prescriptive as far as telling people they *should* do this, only some of the considerations about doing it if they wish to.
John Woodworth’s bulk-rr document was discussed in the WG in the last IETF meeting (Berlin in July) and got enough interest that John was planning to keep working on it. It needs people committed to active review and discussion on it to become a WG document, which he hasn’t requested (yet), but if the idea seems useful to you, you should tell him.
(DNSOP co-chair, but not speaking for the WG or anyone else….)
More information about the NANOG