Re: [dns-wg] Policy for Reverse DNS for End-User PAAddresses?

[Brad Knowles <]

At 2:06 AM +0100 2004-07-09, Jim Reid wrote:

>  If bit-shifter A won't do reverse DNS to a customer's liking, the
>  customer can go to bit-shifter B who does. How A and B shift bits
>  is irrelevant: DSL, avian carriers, cable modems, whatever. It all
>  comes down to a trade-off between cost, QoS, bandwidth and reverse
>  DNS. If reverse DNS is the over-riding concern for someone, they can
>  always find an ISP who will do this. Though it may be from an ISP that
>  doesn't do DSL.
	Let's go back to the original message on this subject from Jørgen 
Elgaard Larsen:

| In my experience, reverse DNS often works well with larger
| organisations that have been assigned a /24 IPv4 range or
| greater. On the other hand, it almost never works with smaller
| organisations using smaller ranges, e.g. on ADSL lines.
|
| As I see it, there is a general trend that more and more small
| and mid-size businesses uses ADSL lines for connectivity. Since
| IPv4 addresses are scarce, these businesses are often assigned
| IPv4 ranges smaller than /24 - many only get a /30 range.
| Nevertheless, they still operates servers for various purposes.


	Now, Jim -- you're talking about the general solution.  Yes, with 
enough money, you should always be able to find an alternative 
provider who is willing to do whatever you want.  You just have them 
run an OC-192 line to your basement, get RIPE to issue you a /8, and 
you're golden.  Anything down to an E-1 and a /24 and you shouldn't 
have any problems.

	But we're not talking about the general solution.  We're talking 
about issues with DSL providers.

>  In the case of a monopoly provider, a "Correct Reverse DNS Is A Very
>  Good Thing" document from the WG might be helpful if their policies
>  are not addressing their customer's needs and those customers have
>  nowhere else to go.
	Now that is a statement which I will agree with.

--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@localhost

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
    Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.