Reverse lookup for classless networks

[John Levine]

In article <mailman.78.1545937252.716.bind-users at lists.isc.org> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 12/27/18 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Well, there's those pesky old DNS standards, but we're used to software 
>> working around screwed up zones.
>
>Agreed.  Which standard(s) does this run afoul of?
>
>> If the parent delegates a name to a child server, the child server must 
>> have an SOA at that name, along with whatever else you might want to 
>> put there.
>
>Which of the other records that must be there are actually queried as 
>part of a normal lookup?
>
>Sure, they should be there or expect failure when someone / something 
>explicitly looks for the SOA record.

Well, yeah, like I said it's wrong but you can often get away with it.
The DNS specs are a mess and the SOA at the top is poorly described in
1034 and 1035 (as is a lot of other stuff.)  You'll definitely lose if
your reverse zones are signed like mine are.

>> I see a delegation loop.   What's the lookup chain supposed to be for 
>> 128.0.192.in-addr.arpa?
>
>192.0.128.0/24 is outside of the zone in question (192.0.2.0/24).  ;-)

I can't type either.  Try 128.2.0.192 which in your example appears to
have an NS in the parent zones pointing at yourdomain, and in
yourdomain pointing back at the parent.

>> PS: What's wrong with using $GENERATE in the parent zone like everyone 
>> else who uses BIND does?
>
>There's nothing wrong with $GENERATE per say.  I advocate using it. 
>That being said, I find that $GENERATE, and other similar shortcuts, can 
>hinder teaching.  I don't want someone to have to learn multiple 
>concepts at the same time (if they aren't already familiar with $GENERATE).

I agree that $GENERATE is a kludge, but since we agree that we want to
control our own rDNS, it's the kludge that gets the job done.  Just
use it.

R's,
John