[ncc-services-wg] Proposal: optimized rev-DNS operations

Hello Nick,

It's not about "chasing down" from RIPE NCC towards their members.

It's rather: how should the resources holders KNOW about rev-DNS
requests targeted for their space?

It would require FIRST a delegation and THEN see those requests coming
in. But for - say internally used adresses - one might not want to
delegate all address space.

My hope with this proposal was to provide a service in order to
(optionally) signal interested members what specific areas of rev-DNS
areas there are, in order to know which reverse-delegation should make
sense and considered for rev-delegation.

Therefore I decided to get statistics first from the RIPE NCC
DNS-Servers, but I am not fully aware how and where I could start this
investigation.

Hence I halt the proposal in the meantime, until I have solid figures
and base it not just on assumptions.

.kurt

 Am 25.10.19 um 15:21 schrieb Nick Hilliard (Network Ability Ltd):
> Kurt Kayser wrote on 25/10/2019 13:39:
>> Since the IPv6-blocks are quite large, one member might be interested
>> towards areas that have active reverse requests coming in (but those are
>> only visible up to the RIPE NCC servers, if they are not delegated for
>> *all* IPv6 address space, which I doubt will ever happen.
>>
>> If they would have a means to know those top-areas they could
>> (optionally) start analyzing and a delegation process and deliver
>> answers for such addresses.
>
> but is it really the RIPE NCC's business to chase this down for
> resource holders?  If the resource holder wants to know, they can get
> the dns delegated and investigate this themselves.  If they don't want
> to know, that's kinda their business.
>
> Nick

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4052 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20191027/b2267df7/attachment.p7s>