🚀 go-pugleaf

All -- this is a general plea:

	There is something that has been rankling me a while now,
and shows no sign of changing... that is the registration of
in-addr.arpa records for "non-connected" sites. Now the status
"non-connected" is a relative, or more correctly relativistic, term.
It depends on the perspective of the observer.

	You might not consider random-french-network-X connected,
put that doesn't mean *I* can't send/receive packets to/from it.
And as a client of the root nameservers, I would like to be able
to resolve the name of those packets I might just happen to see
on my network, especially if it is someone trying to break into a
host.  Or a bogon source.

	In any case, "connected" is an IP-level (and hence routing
policy) question.  It has nothing at all to do with name-to-
address or address-to-name translation (it's another layer and a
different ball of wax), and anyone who thinks otherwise should
(re)read RFC-814.

	I sent mail to the NIC, they took weeks to answer, and sent
me a lame answer with no justification.

	Two years ago, we broached this issue.  It was eventually,
and painfully, resolved on an individual basis.  It was a procedure
I don't want to go through again.

	So, can we nix the chauvanist attitude that a network isn't
*really* connected unless it is connected to the US, and hence has
a "legitimate" reason to be resolvable??  IP has finally caught on
in Europe.  Really.  Even Japan.  As far away as Australia!!

	If I can resolve a name to an address, why not the inverse?

	Who came up with this policy, anyway?  I would like to ask
him/her to reconsider, or at least justify his/her reasoning...

-Philip