PTR record handling in a subnetted network

Joseph S D Yao jsdy at cospo.osis.gov
Tue Mar 6 00:02:05 UTC 2001


On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 06:20:02PM -0500, Bob Vance wrote:
> Personally, and as I have said here before, I would prefer to have the
> ISP's CNAMEs simply point into my forward zone.
> 
> At least 2 benefits:
>  . no new zone delegations nor NS RRs for anybody to worry about,
>  . the PTRs can sit right next to their corresponding forward RR.
> 
> No one has yet given me a reason for *not* doing that.

That's because it's allowed under the sections I quoted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   This way you can actually end up with the name->address and the
   (pointed-to) address->name mapping data in the same zone file - some
   may view this as an added bonus as no separate set of secondaries for
   the reverse zone is required.  Do however note that the traversal via
   the IN-ADDR.ARPA tree will still be done, so the CNAME records
   inserted there need to point in the right direction for this to work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, they already thought of that.  ;-]

-- 
Joe Yao				jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.


More information about the bind-users mailing list