Re: [apnic-talk] Re: [APNIC Members] APNIC SIGs at APRICOT 2000
>>speaking of which - so many APNIC networks have no registered reverse!
>
>Or maybe APNIC shouldn't actually allocate address space until the
>custodian/recipient of the address space has set up a working reverse DNS
>for the proposed allocation?
I'm sorry but I do not see it as being productive suggestion
that APNIC assume the role of Internet Correctness Policeman :-)
I know that the intent is to provoke reaction, so I couldn't help but
flag the above as a less than overwhelming good idea.
The lack of population of the reverse DNS is not APNIC's fault.
>And if APNIC did this, maybe the APNIC membership who receive the address
>space shouldn't assign any address space to their customers until those
>customers have a working DNS?
oh dear!
>should be enough points to start stirring the discussion a little... ;-)
true - or kill it ;-)
g
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *