From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 14 14:40:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17142 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:40:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from mars.abcinternet.net (drow@mars.abcinternet.net [205.216.244.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17131 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drow@drow.net) Received: from localhost (drow@localhost) by mars.abcinternet.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29587; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:38:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:38:48 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Jacobowitz X-Sender: drow@mars.abcinternet.net To: Jim Shankland cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: weird IP address In-Reply-To: <199712142040.MAA25208@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Jim Shankland wrote: > Marc Slemko writes: > > > I am saying you can use whatever IP you want for a nameserver > > when registering a domain via the InterNIC and they will not > > trying to figure out if you are authorized to use it. The > > InterNIC will list that nameserver in the DNS for that domain, > > will add a glue record for the nameserver, and will create a > > host record. You can't have multiple host records for one IP, > > though. > > Back when domain registration was free, InterNIC would actually > check the name servers you named, making sure that they were reachable > and had proper NS and SOA records for your new domain. If not, your > registration was put on hold until you fixed things. > > Now that they're charging money for the service, evidently they > can no longer afford to do this :-(. It strikes me as a little odd that InterNIC puts reverse DNS for the nameservers on their root servers - in fact, judging by my past experiences, I could ahve sworn that they did not. (In fact, hgaving just gone to check a few others, they do not) Apparently they only do so if no other NS is responsible for ther reverse range specified! Go figure. An InterNIC bug?