[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 ]