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

Jørgen E. Larsen wrote:

> A very interesting draft. If this becomes standard, RIPE should consider 
> this question anyway. Does anyone know the status of this draft?

it is currently a wg item in the IETF DNSOP wg and will be discussed at
the San Diego IETF. There hasn't been any discussion on the list for quite
a while.

> Peter Koch also wrote:
> > Yes, like privacy issues.
> 
> Actually, draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-05.txt mentions that privacy
> issues are irrelevant for this, since the information is already partially
> accessible through whois.

Just to clarify: I wasn't suggesting that the reverse mapping induced privacy
problems. This sentence was in response to Jim, who, to my reading, suggested
small allocations be added to the RIPE db.

> It is true that some DSL customers have dynamic addresses, but many have 
> static ones. If someone were to make reverse DNS for dynamic addresses, 
> it would have to be the ISP (or whoever controls the /24 zone). I feel 
> it would be counter-productive to make that mandatory - dynamic 
> addresses and DNS cache do not mix (sufficiently low TTLs would just 
> make too much traffic).

So, do you feel this is DSL specific or could be described as "reverse
mapping for small address ranges"? Brad seemed to distinguish between
the ISP and the DSL provider {BTW, speaking of categories, you might want
to have a look at draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-03.txt - but let's not
discuss that one here}. My perception is that we have a similar situation
with one of our larger T-elco. On the other hand, the very same company
does (and has been doing for years) provide RFC 2317 delegations.

Let's first agree what the problem domain is.
Then, we could do some measurement/counting, e.g. find how much address
space < /24 is actually served in RFC 2317/BCP 20 style. The NCC did
regular IN-ADDR.ARPA surveys and some of this data may be either readily
available or not too difficult to find.

-Peter