[dns-operations] IPv6 PTR best practice
Alarig Le Lay
alarig at swordarmor.fr
Fri May 11 08:37:53 UTC 2018
On mer. 9 mai 12:27:10 2018, John Levine wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1805082245080.19081 at byq-nqzva.cvkrytngr.arg> you write:
> >> The *MASSIVE* number of /unneeded/ records would be astonishing. Not to
> >> mention the amount of resources that said records would consume.
> Well, let's see. My home LAN uses one /64 out of the /56 that my ISP
> assigns. Let's assume that each PTR record uses a modest 30 bytes
> since both the name and the data can use label compression. So 2**64
> records times 30 bytes comes to about 500 million terabytes. Seems
> bulky, don't think it would fit in my garage. And, of course, each of
> my neighbors will need another 500M terabytes in their garages, too.
You don’t necessary have to store them, you could generate it on the
Here are some examples, with auto-generated and static reverses (and the
static one is outdated):
10:30 alarig at mew ~ % dig +short -x 2a00:5884:8316::1
10:30 alarig at mew ~ % dig +short -x 2a00:5884:8316::2
10:30 alarig at mew ~ % dig +short -x 2a00:5884:8316:dead:beef:cafe::42
I’m using knot with mod-synth-record to achieve this.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the dns-operations