[6bone] Re: reverse 6dns painful (was Re: reverse DNS consideredpointless)

[mjl at luckie.org.nz (Matthew Luckie)]

 > Not bad,but still different from forward adresses; how much simpler (=
 > easy, less prone to error, -> cheaper to administer) to use the same
 > notation for forward and reverse.

just a small note on errors that I've seen in the reverses for names as 
part of a DNS walk I did of ip6.arpa about 9 months ago.

I attempted zone transfers from 2539 zones seen in ip6.arpa, and got 410 
transfers.

22 zones out of those 410 had addresses in them that appeared to have 
syntax errors, i.e. addresses were too short to be valid IPv6, or had 
incorrect characters, e.g.:

too long:

0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2

too short:

2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2

.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2

not 4-bit between dots

97.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2

2000.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2

separately to these 22 zones, I found examples of PTR and NS records 
that did not belong in the zone they were retrieved from.

e.g.

zone: x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2.ip6.int
(is that actually correct, the address is valid but supposed to be in 
ip6.arpa and not ip6.int?)

zone 4.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.9.0.0.0.y.y.y.y.e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa
(that one is bizarre, x.x.x.x is completely different to y.y.y.y)

Other than that, the state of reverses seemed to be in reasonable shape.

If you have any comments or questions or corrections, feel free to send 
them.

Matthew