[arin-ppml] ULA-C and reverse DNS

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:03 AM,  <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> Addresses intended for use on the public Internet come with
> reverse DNS delegations, but ULA-C addresses only come with
> guaranteed global uniqueness.

Michael,

This doesn't make sense to me. It seems like the RDNS should be
registrant's choice. If they don't want public RDNS, fine. If they
want public RDNS pointing into the ULA space so that leaky DNS servers
find their way back inside, fine. If they want public RDNS pointing to
routed address space, still fine.

I think would personally want my DNS to lead back to my ULA-side DNS
servers so that folks in my private internetwork could find their way
to my servers by name without having to implement a shared private DNS
root.

Remember, the whole point of ULA (instead of just a repeat of RFC1918)
is to *facilitate* connecting private networks together. Making them
somehow manage a DNS root infrastructure seems like it would be the
opposite of facilitate... Particularly when you consider that A and B
may both connect to C but A might not pass packets with B and he may
connect to D who doesn't pass packets with C or B. Systemically, RDNS
may not be possible in these interconnected private networks without a
boost from Internet's DNS system.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004