private address 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x on a public dns

[Chris Thompson]

On Apr 28 2008, roger wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I am trying to find some information that I already believe to be
>true.
>
>I belive: You shouldn't configure a DNS, that answers queries to the
>internet, with a host that will point to a private address.
>
>Our engineering department wants me to do the following:
>
>host      IN       A     192.168.99.154
>
>on a nameserver that answers queries to the internet.
>
>I feel this is wrong, 

It is bad manners, at least, to publish misleading data. (Misleading
because the address will mean something else to the average recipient.)
A bit like pointing an NS or MX record at a host that is never accesible
from the Internet at large, or maybe a bit more sinful than that.

>                      I think this is not allowed,

Yup, the Permanent Floating Internet Posse will hunt you down! 

Well, maybe not.

>                                                   but I can not find
>the RFC, book, internet article that will support my claim. My google-
>foo has failed me. Can anyone lend a helping hand, or if someone can
>lead me to documentation that says it is ok to do so would also be
>helpful.

It's not really that difficult to restrict locally-scoped DNS 
data to the appropriate locality. Use views, or separate zones 
with appropriate access controls.

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 at cam.ac.uk