Is this zonefile legal or should it be changed?
Roy.Arends at nominum.com
Wed Mar 28 10:45:56 UTC 2001
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Nathan Jones wrote:
> 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?
> >$ORIGIN 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa.
> >@ 1D IN SOA @ root (
> > 42 ; serial
> > 3H ; refresh
> > 15M ; retry
> > 1W ; expiry
> > 1D ) ; minimum
> > 1D IN NS @
> Roy Arends has replied to say that the syntax is legal. The bit I find
> odd, though, is the choice of nameserver:
> 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
> 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa.
> I've never seen domains under in-addr.arpa. used for anything other
> than PTRs; at least, not used as hostnames for nameservers.
> And, since there is no A record for 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa. listed in
> the zone file you showed, it won't work properly.
> >And also - shouldn't the SOA have specified some nameserver and some
> >email-address? In this zonefile it only says "...IN SOA @ root".
> I assume that the correct nameserver for the zone is not actually
> 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa., but some other host. This should be specified
> in the SOA and the NS record. (And there should be two or more
> I also assume root at 2.120.10.in-addr.arpa is not a valid email address,
> so that would need to be fixed too.
The syntax is perfectly legal. The naming convention is questionable, and
up to the zone maintainer.
Good thing that you pointed that out.
More information about the bind-users