Subject: Re: [dnsext] IPv6 forward/reverse DNS, was Wildcard expansion in DNS caches

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:45:19 -0500

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Stephan Lagerholm
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Given that:
>
> 1. A wildcard/DNAME solution for rDNS violates RFC 1912.

Where is that stated in RFC 1912? I see no mention of rDNS in the
wildcard section.

Moreover it is an informational document written 14 years ago and
probably did not fully consider the operational requirements of DNS
for IPv6.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:55:46 -0500

> Where is that stated in RFC 1912? I see no mention of rDNS in the

I expect the part being referred to is this:

   Make sure your PTR and A records match.  For every IP address, there
   should be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain.  If a
   host is multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP
   addresses have a corresponding PTR record (not just the first one).
   Failure to have matching PTR and A records can cause loss of Internet
   services similar to not being registered in the DNS at all.  Also,
   PTR records must point back to a valid A record, not a alias defined
   by a CNAME.

which is in section 2.1 (and which also, I note, is about in-addr.arpa
and not the reverse tree).

But I ask once again that we not continue this discussion on DNSEXT.
There is nothing at all in this discussion, as near as I can tell,
that is an issue of the DNS protocol as such.  This is all operations,
and therefore it doesn't belong on this list.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:07:52 +1100

> and therefore it doesn't belong on this list.

The discussion about whether it is good or not I would agree with
you.  But you would agree that some people want this sort of matching?
And how to supply it given, pre-population doesn't work, is within
dnsext's purview.

We have had claims that UPDATE won't work because there is no
cleanup.  How to get UPDATE with cleanup working in a implementation
independent way definitely is withing dnsext's perview.  We already
have a hack done by one vendor.

I would like to discuss just that technical feature.

Mark
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> [email-masked]
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:11:03 -0500

> And how to supply it given, pre-population doesn't work, is within

Yes, that is.  And if people stick to the discussion of how to offer
such a feature, I won't complain.  Whether such a feature is actually
desirable is possibly something for discussion in Another WG -- one
that has provided us a problem statement or two in the past, I think.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.