[ppml] Comments on ARIN's reverse DNS mapping policy

Brian Dickson briand at ca.afilias.info
Tue Sep 11 17:33:27 EDT 2007

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> There have
> been enough postings on
> this topic for you to get an idea of what would happen to such a proposal -
There have been enough people commenting on their misinterpretation of 
John's observation (complaint),
and the underlying technical issue, that the proposal would need to be 
very clearly written to avoid this.

That said, the *actual* issue, if addressed, most certainly would be 
in-scope for RIR policies, and as such
would be suitable for normal discussion, and likely would get support, 
enough to be adopted as policy.
>   Now I have read your ranting and some of the responses.  But there is one
> response that I
> didn't see and that you obviously didn't consider.  In my opinion, the
> network manager at
> your ISP is fully aware of the PTR issues and has chosen to DELIBERATELY not
> entered
> the in-addr.arpa zone for your numbers.
If that is what you think the issue is, then I think you misread the 
original message and several of the follow-ups.

The issue isn't the *content* (present or absent) of the in-addr zone 
that has been delegated, it is that the server to which
the delegation has been made, fails to answer queries for the *specific* 
in-addr zone. It is lame *for that zone*.

[discussion relevant only to non-lame zones with no PTRs in them, 
omitted for brevity.]
> As for your GoDaddy scenario, well the application controls UDP timeout. 
The problem is fundamentally tied to resolvers. Unless the application 
is doing a roll-your-own implementation
of name resolution, it is likely sharing a common fate with all clients 
of resolution service on whatever box is acting as a recursive resolver.

Tweaking timeouts on nameserver lookups is something, to paraphrase 
Randy Bush, I encourage anyone foolish enough to want to, to do so.
> Take care!
> Ted
If you were to "take care" yourself and read and understand what the 
original poster said, IMHO reasonably clearly and with all due emphasis,
you would have been able to avoid making your misunderstanding so 
visible on a public mailing list. No offense intended.


> with no in-addr.arpa SOA
> on there DNS servers.
P.S. Aside from s/there/their/, the above quote summarizes the problem 
reported in 10 words or less. Less is more, IMHO.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list