[dns-wg] Policy for Reverse DNS for End-User PA Addresses?

On Friday 09 July 2004 21:14, Jørgen Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> Jon Lawrence wrote:
> > ISP's/LIR's should be required to provide reverse DNS. Even if it's just
> > a generic reverse such as adsl-xx-xx.isp.com
>
> Although generic reverses does help in some ways, it could also be
> argued that they do not provide much real information. In my opinion it
> will only make sense to make reverse DNS mandatory, if the end user can
> decide that the information should be useful, i.e. that addresses
> resolve to corresponding canonical hostnames.

yes and no :)
It make sense to make reverse dns mandatory even if it's only a *generic* 
reverse. For one thing, I see plenty of emails coming through are servers 
(and some of them are genuine) which come from addresses with absolutely no 
reverse. I'd rather the reverse was relevant, but a *generic* is better than 
nothing.

>
> > No privacy issues aren't irrelevant.
> > When I got my IP range at home, I wasn't informed that my details could
> > potentially appear in a public registry - they didn't in the end,
> > although there is an inetnum for my range it's fully admin'd by my ISP
> > and doesn't contain any of my details.
> > Privacy issues must be addressed, and there is actually no reason why the
> > end user's details need to be associated with the inetnum.
>
> Sorry, I did not mean that privacy issues are irrelevant.
>
> What I (and the draft) ment was that there are no privacy issues with
> reverse DNS as long as you can find the end user for an IP address
> through whois.

You don't necessarily need to be able to find the end user directly from the 
whois, so long as the whois points you in the right direction - ie the ISP.
Ultimately, the whois always points you in the right direction, even if that 
means you end up complaining to the LIR directly :)

> Whether the whois database should allow anonymised inetnum objects is
> another discussion.
Indeed it is another discussion but I for one see nothing intriniscally wrong 
with it - depending upon the degree on anonimity. I think the inetnum for my 
home range (81.168.4.64/29) is a good example of how to put in place an 
anonymous (as far as the end user is concerned) inetnum.

> Thanks for pointing that out - I had not thought of that, since I
> started the other way around, wanting to ensure that end users could
> have relevant reverse DNS if they wanted.

We also do the same. If someone wants to have a relevant reverse DNS then they 
get it - we may request proof that they own the domain name that they want it 
pointing to ;) but the customer gets what they want. Even if they don't want 
it, they may get it - All be it, it might just be their initials prefixed to 
our domain - it makes associating entries in log files to users a lot easier. 
So what if it's a bit more work for me to setup, in the long run I believe it 
saves me headaches.

Jon