The quality of the reverse DNS is something the LIR WG has discussed before, so I enclose for information Bill Manning's summary report. Apologies if you'se seen it already. Mike ------- Forwarded Message From: bmanning@ISI.EDU Posted-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:54:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712162154.AA29738@zed.isi.edu> Subject: numbers for in-addr To: iepg@iepg.org Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:54:52 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-eof-list@ripe.net Precedence: bulk Status: RO As per previous notice, here are the results of the in-addr audits for 1997. I like the positive trend. :) Errors were generally related to the following conditions: - delegation to the host level e.g. 2.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. - use of slashes e.g. 0/2.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. - alpha strings e.g. test.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. - other non-numberics e.g. #???.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. - failure to fully qualify zones, e.g. the missing "." The no-server numbers is the total of the refused, error, and other columns. inital zone runtime total# #correct no-svr refused error other 3q97 97667 657 h 380021 220030 57.9% 159991 26335 90832 42824 4q97 99587 654 h 478311 281368 58.8% 196861 26871 103108 66882 I'd be happy to entertain questions. - --bill ------- End of Forwarded Message