On 15 Oct 2010, at 09:18, thoma spolnik wrote:
if RIPE assigns an large ip net to an ISP - Does RIPE accept, that this ISP ignores RFC 1921, 2.1 [1] (for commercial interests)? Are commercial interests a valid reason [2] for RIPE, that an ISP does not set (generic) PTR records for an used IP?
It's up to the ISP/LIR to decide how to organise the DNS for their reverse zones. Though I'm not aware of any policy which explicitly states that. Perhaps there should be one. Why not present your ideas to this list or even draft a policy proposal? It might be helpful if you said a bit more about the problem(s) which encouraged to to ask these questions.
Does or does not RIPE claim the compliance with (basic) RFCs (like RFC 1921, 2.1 - I think it is a basic, that every IP must have a correct PTR record.) for assigned IP nets?
To the best of my knowledge, RIPE (and the NCC) have no policy in this area. While I agree wholeheartedly that every IP address should have a corresponding PTR entry, there are a few scenarios where this may not apply. For example the address space could be used on an Intranet and isn't visible or routed on the Internet. So putting PTRs in the public- facing DNS for that bit of in-addr.arpa could well be pointless. In other cases, the ISP/LIR may have the space but haven't yet started issuing it to customers. So if the addresses aren't in use, what's the point of adding PTR records for them? [Does everyone put 16M PTRs into 10.in-addr.arpa on their home net?] PTRs might be missing too while a network is renumbered or reconfigured. Personally speaking, it's a Good Thing some IP addresses don't have reverse DNS working. This is usually a very powerful hint that inbound SMTP is likely to be delivering spam. Note too that RFC1912 is rather old -- the DNS landscape has changed a lot since it was written -- and only an INFORMATIONAL. [BIND4 config file snippets? Eek!] It's not a sacred text. ISTR the IETF once mumbled about updating/replacing RFC1912. Though this might only have happened in my imagination. I'm not sure if it's wise to use this RFC as the foundations of a RIPE policy. However that is something for the WG to decide.
I hope, I found the correct mailing list for my question.
You have. PS: Please don't say "IP" when you mean "IP address".