[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
reverse DNS considered pointless was: [6bone] Fwd: BCP 80, RFC 3681 on Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA
- Subject: reverse DNS considered pointless was: [6bone] Fwd: BCP 80, RFC 3681 on Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA
- From: mjl at luckie.org.nz (Matthew Luckie)
- Date: Sun Feb 8 21:49:30 2004
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
> I know for sure that the IPv6 reverse tree is much better populated
> and usefully (no automatically generated reverses) populated than
> the counterpart IPv4 tree. Main reason: dnsspamming irc kiddo's.
> Next to that the people that do IPv6 want it to succeed and thus also
> put those things neatly into the reverse and forward DNS.
> Btw, I know from experience a nice reverse DNS tree setup which has
> more entries (non-spammed btw) than most hosting ISP's serve DNS for
> websites :) Eat 18mb of ascii dns zones <grin>
just a small amount of stats from someone who is not big on stats:
i did a DNS walk of ip6.int about 9 months ago.
of the ~31k addresses i got, 21k were automatically generated (2x 10k,
1x 1k). i saw a fair amount of DNS spamming, but it did not feel like
IRC lamers had taken over the DNS. From memory there was some kind of
free DNS service behind a fair amount of the spam.
of the ~10k left, 2445 survived a sanity check (taking the name returned
in the PTR and resolving for the IPv6 address returned as part of the walk).
of those 2445, i got a response rate of about 70% +/- 3% with
traceroute, depending on where the tests were run from. the majority of
failures of communicating with an address were loops, followed by dead
paths (hosts/networks that said nothing). only a very small proportion
of addresses that were not actually reachable had a router send an ICMP
response saying so.