From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 13 6:40: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fanf.noc.demon.net (fanf.noc.demon.net [195.11.55.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E445C14C25 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 06:40:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fanf@demon.net) Received: from fanf by fanf.noc.demon.net with local (Exim 3.02 #13) id 11FHZ5-000Oqi-00; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:40:11 +0100 To: Doug@gorean.org From: Tony Finch Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (2) hey In-Reply-To: References: <199908122308.TAA88002@whizzo.transsys.com> Message-Id: Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:40:11 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Doug wrote: >Louis A. Mamakos wrote: >>[lost attribution] >>> >>> That IS a violation of the standard, since A records are not valid >>> for hosts in in-addr.arpa. >> >> And next I suppose you'll tell me that PTR records are not valid >> outsize of the IN-ADDR.ARPA portion of the DNS namespace? > > Given how PTR RR's are defined, I'd have to say, ayyup. I suggest you read RFC 2317 (classless reverse DNS). Among its recommendations are setups like: 130.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. CNAME 130.128/28.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. 130.128/28.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. PTR dotat.at. and: 130.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. CNAME 130.rev.dotat.at. 130.rev.dotat.at PTR dotat.at. RFC 2181 allows the / in the CNAME RRs. There's no reason for restricting PTR RRs to a particular part of the name space, and indeed this example shows that doing so can make administration unnecessarily harder. The real reverse DNS for dotat.at uses this more conservative setup: 130.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. CNAME 130.128-28.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. 130.128-28.134.240.212.in-addr.arpa. PTR dotat.at. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch dot@dotat.at fanf@demon.net e pluribus unix To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message