PTR records for v6 hosts

[Bjørn Mork]

"S.P.Zeidler" <spz at serpens.de> writes:

> Why would you do anything different from what you would do in the IPv4
> case? 

Because we create static A and PTR records for all IPv4 addresses
allocated to residential customers.  That does not scale to IPv6.

Yes, it can be discussed whether our IPv4 policy makes sense.  It's a
rather strict interpretation of RFC 1912.  But that discussion is off
topic for this list, so please don't try :-)

We could of course have replaced the static zones with a script, as
others on this list have done.  That would a least scale.  But I do
question the usefulness, given that there is no "RFC 1912 for IPv6".

> Just because there are more addresses doesn't mean there are
> necessarily more addresses in use that want reverse, after all.

True. So the problem reduces to finding out which addresses are in use.
That doesn't make it much easier, though...

> I think if you have an answer to that you'll also have your answer
> to what you want/need to do.
>
> Generally, I'd say don't create reverse unless it is requested.

I tend to agree.  Providing customer self service scripts on a web
portal, letting those who care either fill in their host names or
request delegations, is probably sufficient.  If the customer doesn't
care, then why should I?

I read the http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00 which
Mohsen Souissi pointed to, and it does not recommend transferring the
recommentations of RFC 1912 to IPv6.  There should not be any need to
provide a PTR record just for the sake of providing a PTR record.


Bjørn