My personal opinion is that a mandatory policy is likely to be too
Mandating these things usually needs a hat the wg doesn't wear. See also draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-05.txt.
cumbersome. It could also be painful for ISPs and the NCC: creating inetnum objects for every /29 or whatever an ISP gives to its DSL customers. That might also open the door to other complications. If
Yes, like privacy issues.
some DSL user is in the NCC database because of an inetnum object for reverse delegation, maybe that user should be paying NCC fees? And does
Well, does the recipient of assigned address space now (directly) pay an NCC fee?
about reverse delegations which customers can put in front of their ISP would be no bad thing though.
What I've read between the lines is that in the case of DSL the classless delegation method may not be sufficient, even if the ISP is able and willing. Due to dynamic nature of address assignments they'd need something similar to dyndns (and friends) for the reverse mapping. So, is anyone doing this already? -Peter