reverse name problem with dns server

[Bill Manning]

 RFC 1912 was created prior to the whole bastardization called BCP.
 Note the wording of the message; "... there SHOULD be ..." 
 I think RIPE is being a bit picky if the names don't match.
 I think that they are exercising proper hygiene by insisting that
 an entry exists.



% 
% 
% RFC 1912 is *informational*. It's not even a Best Current Practice, let
% alone a standard. RIPE is being way too picky here. But, if you can't
% persuade them to relax this requirement, you have to either get another
% ISP or persuade your current one to change the reverse entry.
% 
% 
% - Kevin
% 
% adrian boliston wrote:
% 
% > I have got the reverse IP addresses for my network delegated to my own
% > nameserver and another nameserver operated by a friend.
% >
% > Ripe.net is the registry for all my own IP addresses, and their site has
% > a tool where you can check that reverse delegation has been correctly
% > set up.
% >
% > The tool found a problem with my friends nameserver, because he has
% > given his nameserver a name that is not the same as the reverse name
% > corresponding to the IP address of his name server.
% >
% > The tool says:
% >
% > WRONG REVERSE MAPPING - For every IP address there should be a matching
% > PTR record registered (RFC 1912, section 2.1).
% >
% > As I have got reverse delegation on my IP block, I have set my reverse
% > name the same as my nameservers name.
% >
% > My friend has *not* got reverse delegation, and has to accept the long,
% > complicated reverse name for his single IP address, which he would
% > probably not wish to use as the name for his name server, as it is not
% > even a domain name he controls, as the ISP has used a reverse name under
% > their own domain name.
% >
% > What are the implications of this error the tool has picked up?
% >
% > -Adrian Boliston
% 
% 
% 
% 


-- 
--bill