Hello Nick, It's not about "chasing down" from RIPE NCC towards their members. It's rather: how should the resources holders KNOW about rev-DNS requests targeted for their space? It would require FIRST a delegation and THEN see those requests coming in. But for - say internally used adresses - one might not want to delegate all address space. My hope with this proposal was to provide a service in order to (optionally) signal interested members what specific areas of rev-DNS areas there are, in order to know which reverse-delegation should make sense and considered for rev-delegation. Therefore I decided to get statistics first from the RIPE NCC DNS-Servers, but I am not fully aware how and where I could start this investigation. Hence I halt the proposal in the meantime, until I have solid figures and base it not just on assumptions. .kurt Am 25.10.19 um 15:21 schrieb Nick Hilliard (Network Ability Ltd):
Kurt Kayser wrote on 25/10/2019 13:39:
Since the IPv6-blocks are quite large, one member might be interested towards areas that have active reverse requests coming in (but those are only visible up to the RIPE NCC servers, if they are not delegated for *all* IPv6 address space, which I doubt will ever happen.
If they would have a means to know those top-areas they could (optionally) start analyzing and a delegation process and deliver answers for such addresses.
but is it really the RIPE NCC's business to chase this down for resource holders? If the resource holder wants to know, they can get the dns delegated and investigate this themselves. If they don't want to know, that's kinda their business.
Nick