Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Tony Finch <> Wed, 19 July 2017 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3061E131C99 for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jCG5-24VVbEs for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D305131C7C for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
Received: from ([]:48588) by ( []:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1dXmXb-000gb7-fY (Exim 4.89) (return-path <>); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:49:15 +0100
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:49:15 +0100
From: Tony Finch <>
To: "Woodworth, John R" <>
cc: Paul Wouters <>, dnsop WG <>, George Michaelson <>
In-Reply-To: <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081C441@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081C441@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:49:23 -0000

Woodworth, John R <> wrote:

> > For IPv4 I can't see what advantage BULK has over $GENERATE
> > or similar back-end provisioning scripts.
> Really?

If you're proposing a forklift upgrade of the DNS then I think you need to
make the advantages clear, rather than expecting me to guess.

> In the IPv6 world, the smallest significant network is 18
> and some odd quintillion (18,000,000,000,000,000,000)
> addresses.
> Think of this as your property (e.g. your yard).  Each IP address
> in itself is small but without the sum of each, what do you have?
> Suddenly, each blade of grass has value.
> This is how a customer feels when they are given (sold) address space.

I hate mowing the grass.

Can you provide a technical reason for per-address IPv6 reverse DNS?

Where I work, we bulk populate reverse v4 DHCP pools just so we know that
they are pools. We aren't going to bother doing that with v6 because
everything is a pool, except for a relatively small number of statically
configured switches and servers and suchlike.

The other use for reverse DNS is to get a quick idea of which institution
has been allocated an address, at a finer granularity than whois can, and
without having to dig through our more detailed databases. A wildcard PTR
can do this job for v6 just fine. You can even put an APL record at the
PTR target to get the forward and reverse to match.

f.anthony.n.finch  <>  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
South Fitzroy: Northwesterly 4 or 5. Moderate or rough. Showers. Good.