PTR record handling in a subnetted network

[Kevin Darcy]

Joseph S D Yao wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 10:13:41PM -0500, Bob Vance wrote:
> > >That's because it's allowed under the sections I quoted.
> >
> > I understand and noticed that :)
> >
> > My question was why anyone would want to go to the trouble of
> >     . the ISP's delegating another zone
> > and . requiring another zone for the end-user to manage
> >
> > All the discussions seem to focus on this delegation some sub-zone of
> > z.y.x.in-addr.arpa. , rather than simply using CNAMEs into the
> > already-existing forward zone.
> >
> > What I was saying is that the latter seems to me to be a better and
> > simpler solution and no one has said differently or given any drawbacks
> > to this solution.  If the advantages are there and there aren't any
> > drawbacks, then why isn't this solution promulgated more on this list?
>
> The other is in fact simpler conceptually since it does not mix two
> unrelated concepts under one domain.  If you understand it, as you
> obviously do, then the mixture does not pose these problems, and you
> may not realize how confusing such things can be to those who do not
> understand them so well.

I think it's less confusing overall, because it doesn't require configuring
a new zone, thus whacking off two whole steps ("delegate zone", "configure
zone on server") from the procedure. Not to mention the cache-conservation
benefits of eliminating unnecessary delegations...


- Kevin