PTR record handling in a subnetted network

[Bob Vance]

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

I understand and noticed that :)

My question was why anyone would want to go to the trouble of
    . the ISP's delegating another zone
and . requiring another zone for the end-user to manage

All the discussions seem to focus on this delegation some sub-zone of
z.y.x.in-addr.arpa. , rather than simply using CNAMEs into the
already-existing forward zone.

What I was saying is that the latter seems to me to be a better and
simpler solution and no one has said differently or given any drawbacks
to this solution.  If the advantages are there and there aren't any
drawbacks, then why isn't this solution promulgated more on this list?



-------------------------------------------------
Tks        | <mailto:BVance at sbm.com>
BV         | <mailto:BobVance at alumni.caltech.edu>
Sr. Technical Consultant,  SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co.
Vox 770-623-3430           11455 Lakefield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429           Duluth, GA 30097-1511
=================================================





-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org]On
Behalf Of Joseph S D Yao
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:02 PM
To: bind-users at isc.org
Subject: Re: PTR record handling in a subnetted network



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.