North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
Steven Champeon wrote:
Thats not quite what I was asking. Would you not have preferred being able to do all the above simply by being able to assume that all these "dialup" systems would not have any RDNS?on Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:What does the rest of the internet gain when all IPs have boilerplate reverse DNS setup for them, especialy with all these wildly differing and wacky naming "conventions"?
The question restated is what is the benifit in advocating "dialup names" as opposed to simply recommending that dialup ranges get NO rDNS?
For spam/abuse prevention it surely is less usefull. Its much easier to block IP with no rDNS than to maintain a list of patterns of rDNS that should be blocked.
I understand that RFCs recommend/require it. I want to know about specific benefits to the internet at large (not to the user who now has rDNS)
Given a choice between ISP using unpredictable naming patterns or no name for dialup ranges, what would your preference be?
Isnt it a much simpler world where simply having rDNS lends the assumption of a supported "static" system as opposed to none?
Exactly the problem.