RFC 2317

Kevin Darcy kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Fri Mar 10 21:35:39 UTC 2000

parker at bctm.com wrote:

> Hi,
> I've read and I think I follow RFC 2317 as it applies to the scope
> discussed in the RFC.
> I have a slightly different issue and wonder if the RFC is applicable.
> My site is part of a larger organization. We're operating our own DNS,
> and will soon be taking on a part of the address range of our parent.
> The current address range is the class B (example) 172.60.x.y. We have
> been allocated subnets 64 through 127 of this class B.
> Can I set things up in a similar fashion as described in RFC 2317 such
> that I have control over the PTR records for my subnets, and delegation
> is correct?
> I've been attempting this in a test setup and have not had much luck so
> far... any pointers would be appreciated (no pun intended)

RFC 2317 was really intended for delegations below the /24 level.
Technically, you *could* use a similar methodology at higher levels, but
I can't imagine, for instance, your parent preferring to create ~16,000
CNAMEs (one for every possible address in your range) over the
"traditional" model of just delegating 64 /24's to your servers.

- Kevin

More information about the bind-users mailing list