Is there a limit on the number of IP addresses to a name?
Barry Margolin
barmar at genuity.net
Thu May 4 19:20:24 UTC 2000
In article <3911BD0E.9A138A86 at kodak.com>,
Susan Casserino <susan.casserino at kodak.com> wrote:
>A problem was reported to me that lead me to an interesting question.
>Is there a limit to how many IP addresses can be assigned to one name?
>
>I found 3 different nslookup/resolver scenarios with our UNIX systems
>and resolvers. They are all running Solaris, but are at different
>patch levels.
>
>Our forwarders and external DNS servers are successful with both
>nslookup & resolving. They are running Quadritek QDDNS 4.9.7
>and QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2) respectively.
>
>Our internal DNS servers fail on both nslookup & resolving. They are
>running QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2).
>
>An internal desktop using the internal DNS servers can resolve, but
>not do a nslookup.
>
>The name I'm looking at is kodak.photonet.com, it has 34 IP's. I used
>http://www.demon.net/external/ntools.shtml to examine the data of
>the specific host and that will give you "???" on the 31st entry.
>I don't know why there would be a need to use so many addresses, but
>regardless of why, it raised a valid question.
If a UDP DNS reply gets larger than about 500 bytes, it is truncated. The
client is supposed to retry the query using TCP instead of UDP. However,
BIND 4 doesn't support performing recursive queries using TCP, so you'll
won't be able to do this through your forwarder until you upgrade it to
BIND 8.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list