Okay, I cannot take it any more.

Barry Margolin barmar at genuity.net
Fri May 26 19:05:12 UTC 2000


In article <20000526173004.A23863 at hydra.entire-systems.com>,
Daniel Roesen  <droesen at entire-systems.com> wrote:
>> This is a valid mechanism, and not unreasonable for tiny address
>> blocks
>
>Hm. IMHO only for tiny = 1 IP address... :-) I can see no reason in
>favour of this method if you have to hand out control for more than
>one IP address reverse-mapping. Please enlighten me :-)

As far as the parent domain is concerned, there's not much difference
between doing:

216/29 NS  dns0.ancdf.org.
$GENERATE 216-223 $ CNAME $.216/29

versus:

$GENERATE 216-223 $ NS dns0.ancdf.org.

However, for the administrator of dns0.ancdf.org, the latter is a bit more
of a pain.  Instead of 8 lines in one zone file, he needs to create 8 zone
files.  But since they're all almost identical, he can create one, make 7
copies of it, and then edit them each to have the appropriate PTR record.

A reason that an ISP may favor the NS mechanism over the CNAME mechanism
may have to do with the automated tools they use to maintain their DNS.
Perhaps they haven't enhanced them to support RFC 2317, but they already
support ordinary delegation.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.



More information about the bind-users mailing list