Re: [dns-wg] Policy for Reverse DNS for End-User PA Addresses?
"Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> writes:
>> I've also got a gut feel that reverse delegation is really an >> issue between an ISP and its customer. If some ISP won't do >> reverse delegation properly (or at all), the customer is free >> to pick another ISP that does. Economic Darwinism should sort >> this out, just like it eliminates the clueless ISPs with lousy >> service. Brad> I disagree. In many cases, there is one and only one Brad> DSL provider for a given address -- the old telephone Brad> monopoly continues to have a stranglehold here. Brad, please re-read what I said. I spoke about ISPs, not DSL providers. If working reverse DNS is a very important consideration for some customer, they can always find an ISP who can accommodate that. This might of course mean choosing some other way of shifting bits from what any monopoly DSL provider has to offer. So the customer makes their choice and pays their money. This probably is a much more effective way of getting results than writing up a BCP. Please note that I'm not saying monopoly DSL (or whatever) providers should be encouraged to ignore reverse DNS for their customers.
At 11:03 PM +0100 2004-07-08, Jim Reid wrote:
Brad, please re-read what I said. I spoke about ISPs, not DSL providers.
At least in some countries, the DSL provider owns the reverse DNS, not the ISP.
If working reverse DNS is a very important consideration for some customer, they can always find an ISP who can accommodate that.
Not all ISPs provide their own access. In Belgium, I believe that Belgacom is the only DSL access provider that is allowed by law. Everyone else has to resell DSL access from Belgacom, and Belgacom owns the reverse DNS. For some countries, access is the only thing that is provided, and if you want anything beyond access, you have to go to some other provider outside of the country. I have been told that this is the case throughout Poland.
This might of course mean choosing some other way of shifting bits from what any monopoly DSL provider has to offer.
To cablemodem, which is not available in all locales. The only other high speed option is satellite, which also isn't universally available.
So the customer makes their choice and pays their money. This probably is a much more effective way of getting results than writing up a BCP.
Sometimes there aren't any viable choices. Whatever the WG does (or does not do), I think this fundamental problem has to be acknowledged. -- 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