PTR records for IPv6

David Farmer farmer at
Mon Sep 2 03:14:52 CEST 2013

On 9/1/13 19:30 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Farmer <farmer at
> <mailto:farmer at>> wrote:
>     However, in IPv4 some have required PTRs even on client and
>     essentially every IPv4 address used on the Internet.  I think this
>     has little value and would most definitely be a case of "we did it
>     for v4 so it must be right for v6", not to mention the fact that /64
>     for all practical purposes is innumerable.
> What's wrong with wildcard PTRs?
> *.e.f.a.c.8.b.d. IN PTR
> <>.

Nothing is wrong with them, but I just don't see the value in requiring 
them.  I'll probably provide them on my networks, but the question was 
what is the value of requiring PTRs?

I see some value in requiring PTRs for some well-know service, but I 
don't see value in a general requirement that all IPv6 addresses have a 
PTR.  Which would basically require the use of wildcard PTRs.


David Farmer               Email: farmer at
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list