PTR records for v6 hosts

[Mohsen Souissi]

 On 31 Aug, Bjørn Mork wrote:
 | Ron Broersma <ron at spawar.navy.mil> writes:
 | 
 | > We wrote a tool that regularly polls the routers, grabs the ARP and ND
 | > tables (using appropriate snmp MIBs), looks for all the global unicast
 | > IPv6 addresses in the list, and then using their MAC address we map to
 | > the associated IPv4 address, then use that to look up the IPv4 PTR
 | > record in DNS, then use that to build an IPv6 PTR record and use
 | > dynamic DNS update to update the zone (with various optimizations such
 | > as caching, garbage collection, etc).   That works well for us
 | > (dealing with thousands of v6 hosts on our net), although there are
 | > challenges with differences in how each vendor implements the v6 MIBs,
 | > and churn from those horrible privacy/temporary addresses [RFCs 3041,
 | > 4941] that that all Microsoft OS's enable by default).  This, of
 | > course, is assuming each host has some amount of IPv4 and IPv6
 | > activity, but in reality it works just fine over time.
 | 
 | Nice solution for dual stack hosts.  But how do you plan to support IPv6
 | only hosts?
 | 
 | And does anyone have a proposal that would fit an ISP environment? Lets
 | say you use DHCP-PD to delegate a prefix to a customer, who is in full
 | control of his own "residential gateway" so you can't look up his
 | neigbour table.  What do you do?
 | 
 | - Delegate the reverse zone to the customer?  Most won't have a clue
 |   what to do with it.
 | - Provide a DDNS solution for the customer and not care whether they use
 |   it or not?  Most won't use it.
 | - Set up an IPv6 "walldns" (to borrow terminology from DJB)?  I don't
 |   really see the point.  How is a pointer record like
 |   x20010db800000000021a73fffe502834.example.com better than just not
 |   having a pointer?


==> You may want to have a look at this I-D which is related to the
topic: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00 (I
haven't read it yet, just browsed through).

Mohsen.