%
% So, of the 57,887 visable servers, 4314 are improperly configured
% in the visable in-addr.arpa. tree. Thats 7.45% of the
% servers being "not well maintained".
%
% a 92.55% reliability rate is not exactly impressive, at least not in
% a favorable sense.
%
% it might be tolerable if a failure of the PTR lookup doesn't cause
% the application to fail. but after all, people are saying that DNS
% is good enough to serve as a means to map endpoint identifiers
% to realm-local addresses or routing goop. if applications were
% written to depend on DNS reverse lookups in order to get endpoint
% identifiers of their peers, they would only work as reliably as DNS,
% which isn't very good.
%
% thanks for backing up my assertion with hard data.
%
% Keith
I've not backed your assertion. I've provided some data
on the relative stability of the in-addr space. You've provided
zero data on the efficacy of the forward delegations.
Can you, with a straight face, claim the servers for the
forward zones have a better reliability rate than the 92.55%
that I have seen in the inverse tree? If so, where is the
data to back your assertion? Or would the community like
me to do for the forward tree what I have been doing for the
inverse tree?
--bill