[arin-ppml] ULA-C and reverse DNS

[Michael Richardson]

>>>>> "michael" == michael dillon <michael.dillon at bt.com> writes:
    michael> I got a private question that I thought was worth sharing:
    >> So, how is the reverse DNS handled then?

(That was me, I didn't really have to write privately)

    michael> Same as RFC 1918 addresses.

You mean, the root and arpa. name servers are going to provide NXDOMAIN
responses for them all, at huge load and system impact?  

    michael> Addresses intended for use on the public Internet come with
    michael> reverse DNS delegations, but ULA-C addresses only come with
    michael> guaranteed global uniqueness.

That's really a big problem to me.

Reverse DNS is really the major reason to prefer ULA-C over ULA-random.

If there is no reverse DNS, then the enterprise has to arrange for *all*
machines (including the mobile ones using MIPv6) to always use the same
set of concentric DNS servers.
In multi-site RFC1918 numbered enterprises, what I've seen is that they
have given up on reverse DNS, sometimes given up on DNS period.

The only reason your proposal can't include reverse DNS is because it
has been created as a tragedy of the commons with no specific RIR
responsible for this.  

Why not just take the address space and delegate /16s of it to each RIR
in the same way we do now? 

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.