Re: [DNSOP] missing use case and problem statement for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr

["Woodworth, John R" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DNSOP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jim Reid
>
> BTW, if there are cases where an ISP’s customers care about
> reverse DNS for their IPv6 addresses, what’s stopping those
> customer devices using dynamic update to provision their names
> or have the DHCP server do that for them? Why can’t the ISP's
> provisioning systems and tools spit out PTR records for the IP
> addresses which need this secret sauce?
>

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your comments.

How exactly does a hide-the-body scheme solve the issue?  Do we
really want a /64 to be dynamically updated because we shift the
problem back to them?

We've actually had requests narrowed to a simple /96 to help with
their problem, as if shrinking their request to simply the equivalent
of the IPv4 Internet would help :) .

Other providers are more than willing to bestow a solution to
our customers today, *actually* polluting DNS with all the doomsday
fears you're touting becoming fulfilled.

Why wouldn't we want to take the opportunity to take this on as a
community and guide it the way we want, within the boundaries we set,
and with the standards support (DNSSEC, etc.) we want to promote?


Thanks,
John

>
-- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER:
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.