Is this zonefile legal or should it be changed?
Roy.Arends at nominum.com
Tue Mar 27 16:08:29 UTC 2001
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> I'm looking at a zonefile here that looks a bit odd to me, but perhaps
> it's not a problem at all?
> This is used in BIND 8.2.3:
> $ORIGIN 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa.
> @ 1D IN SOA @ root (
> 42 ; serial
> 3H ; refresh
> 15M ; retry
> 1W ; expiry
> 1D ) ; minimum
> 1D IN NS @
> 1 1D IN PTR server1.some.hidden.domain.
> 2 1D IN PTR server2.some.hidden.domain.
> The things I find odd is the use of "3H" and "15M" etc. for the
> different times in the SOA-field and the RRs. I thought I read someplace
> that the H/M/W/D notation was deprecated or incorrect?
To my knowledge, this is not deprecated nor incorrect.
> And also - shouldn't the SOA have specified some nameserver and some
> email-address? In this zonefile it only says "...IN SOA @ root".
It has. Using the @ character, causes bind to use the name specified in
the $ORIGIN directive. The root name in the soa is not terminated with a
dot, so bind will automaticly attach the $ORIGIN after root.
To the outside world, this SOA record will be:
2.120.10.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN SOA \
2.120.10.in-addr.arpa. root.2.120.10.in-addr.arpa. (
42 ; serial
10800 ; refresh
900 ; retry
604800 ; expiry
86400 ) ; minimum
> Am I correct in thinking that those issues are wrong, or are they legal
> to use?
They are legal to use.
More information about the bind-users