Re: Multiple PTR records

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> Fri, 08 June 2001 10:31 UTC

From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>
cc: Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>, dnsop@cafax.se, comp-protocols-dns-bind@moderators.isc.org
Subject: Re: Multiple PTR records
In-Reply-To: <20010608104746.B17160@penguin.ripe.net>
References: <20010608104746.B17160@penguin.ripe.net> <200106072259.f57MxFv91665@drugs.dv.isc.org> <3B201B46.97FDF5A4@daimlerchrysler.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:01:22 +0700
Message-ID: <2547.991994482@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk

    Date:        Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:47:48 +0200
    From:        Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>
    Message-ID:  <20010608104746.B17160@penguin.ripe.net>

  | OTOH, my understanding of the IPv6 world is, "yes IPv6 numbers are
  | totally ridiculous, so use DNS for everything".  In such a world,
  | reverse DNS seems to take on a huge importance.

You're confusing two issues.   One is the ability to translate numbers
into names.   The other is "reverse DNS" (really DNS in the in-addr.arpa
or ip6.int or ip6.arpa zone).

The latter is commonly used to implement the former, but it certainly
isn't the only way.

kre

ps: as for managing the DNS for number->name for customers given a /48,
then one of two things happens - either the customer has a large network,
in which case they're either going to manage the DNS for themselves, or
pay you large enough sums that you will be willing to do it for them,
or they actually only have a very small real network, in which case the
only real difference from what you do now with IPv4 is that the names
are longer, isn't it?    And of course, there's also Dynamic DNS if
you want to use it - let the nodes update their own entries.