PTR record handling in a subnetted network
Joseph S D Yao
jsdy at cospo.osis.gov
Tue Mar 6 00:02:05 UTC 2001
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 06:20:02PM -0500, Bob Vance wrote:
> Personally, and as I have said here before, I would prefer to have the
> ISP's CNAMEs simply point into my forward zone.
>
> At least 2 benefits:
> . no new zone delegations nor NS RRs for anybody to worry about,
> . the PTRs can sit right next to their corresponding forward RR.
>
> No one has yet given me a reason for *not* doing that.
That's because it's allowed under the sections I quoted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This way you can actually end up with the name->address and the
(pointed-to) address->name mapping data in the same zone file - some
may view this as an added bonus as no separate set of secondaries for
the reverse zone is required. Do however note that the traversal via
the IN-ADDR.ARPA tree will still be done, so the CNAME records
inserted there need to point in the right direction for this to work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, they already thought of that. ;-]
--
Joe Yao jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list