This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/

[dns-wg] request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1912, 2.1 [was: request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1921, 2.1]

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1912, 2.1 [was: request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1921, 2.1]
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1912

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri Oct 15 18:32:31 CEST 2010

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:40:35AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 17:23 +0200 10/15/10, thoma spolnik wrote:
> 
> >That's fine. So I hope to find an answer. Must an _public_ IP address have
> >a PTR or not?
> 
> The short answer is no.
> 

	to be fair, an IP address is not required to be the rdata of an A record
	either.  address literals are (and should remain) perfectly fine(*).

* some RIPE-DNS WG co-chair not withstanding.

-- bill 

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1912, 2.1 [was: request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1921, 2.1]
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] request about RIPE vs. ISP and RFC 1912

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]