Re: [dns-wg] Policy for Reverse DNS for End-User PA Addresses?
"Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> writes:
>> Brad, please re-read what I said. I spoke about ISPs, not DSL >> providers. Brad> At least in some countries, the DSL provider owns the Brad> reverse DNS, not the ISP. To repeat myself: please re-read what I said. 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. >> If working reverse DNS is a very important consideration for >> some customer, they can always find an ISP who can accommodate >> that. Brad> Not all ISPs provide their own access. In Belgium, I Brad> believe that Belgacom is the only DSL access provider that Brad> is allowed by law. Everyone else has to resell DSL access Brad> from Belgacom, and Belgacom owns the reverse DNS. So what? If they won't do reverse DNS to your liking, try a cable company. Or get Level3 (say) to run fibre into your basement. Or do dialup over your GSM. There's always a solution. But it might not be as cheap or convenient as DSL from the incumbent. That's why I said people can always vote with their wallets. 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.
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@skynet.be> "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.
participants (2)
-
Brad Knowles -
Jim Reid