Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:35:50 +0400
From:      "Artem Koutchine" <matrix@ipform.ru>
To:        "Jim Weeks" <jim@siteplus.net>, "Andy Wolf" <Andy.Wolf@nextra.de>
Cc:        "James Wyatt" <jwyatt@rwsystems.net>, "Jan Knepper" <jan@digitaldaemon.com>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: DNS: having domain1.com and domain1.net point to the same IP.
Message-ID:  <038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0@ipform.ru>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290820270.272-100000@veager.siteplus.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Jim Weeks" <jim@siteplus.net>
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Andy Wolf wrote:
>
> > We use two A records now and therefor accept redundancy. The reverse
lookup
> > of course can only point to one of the labels.
>
> The general consensus throughout the industry seems to be that C names are
> evil.
>
> I have never been bitten by just using A names.
>

I have. Revers lookup might fail and some secure smtp server and other
daemons
do not allow access if reverse lookup failes. For example:

sux            IN    A    192.168.0.1
mustdie    IN    A    192.168.0.1

in the reverse zone we say
1            IN    PTR    sux

nslookup mustdie gives 192.168.0.1
nslookup  192.168.0.1 gives 'sux'

Artem



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0>