PTR record handling in a subnetted network
mathias at koerber.org
Tue Mar 6 06:10:32 UTC 2001
> 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?
Most of the advantages are those of easier understanding. No need to fiddle with
a forward zone when reverse zones are modified (renumebering)
No need to remember to redelegate/change the CNAMES if the customer's fwd zone changes.
No confusing new admins of the fwd zones with PTR records in there etc.
It just keeps a clearer picture.
More information about the bind-users