[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario

To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:30:03 -0400
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0908010940160.5006@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0907310942230.7358@uplift.swm.pp.se> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A0302D1F83D@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.0908010940160.5006@uplift.swm.pp.se>

> Do people think it's a good idea? I personally like reverse-DNS
historically, but when IPv6 hosts can take and
> leave IPs via SLAAC all the time, does it even make sense to have
reverse-DNS? I still think it does.

For DHCPv6 clients in the home, you could have the DHCPv6 server in the
CPE Router also populate the reverse-DNS tree.  For SLAAC clients in the
home (the more usual case), you could snoop the NS(DAD) and consult a
MAC table of allowed clients and names and then populate the reverse DNS
tree.

The question for the working group is, is this behavior worthwhile to
standardize or should we just expect that vendors will do something
reasonable here?

- Wes

References:
- in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
  - From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
- RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
  - From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
- RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
  - From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>

Prev by Date: RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
Next by Date: RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
Previous by thread: RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
Next by thread: RE: in-addr.arpa. in DHCPv6-PD scenario
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread