IP (not zone) delegation
Dean Carrera
Dean.Carrera at intcx.com
Tue Sep 17 20:41:59 UTC 2002
I'm trying to figure this out myself. Setting up the forward delegation =
is pretty straight forward. The reverse is confusing. I'm still having =
some issues in getting this to work. Can this be done through the Win2k =
DNS management console?
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Darcy [mailto:kcd at daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:34 PM
To: 'bind-users at isc.org'
Subject: Re: IP (not zone) delegation
"Smith, John" wrote:
> All,
>
> Background: We are in the process of installing DNS =
internally.
> Based on a consultant's design suggestions we are configuring the =
zones as
> follows (I will use test.net as the *example* zone):
>
> ------------
> | test.net | (All non-Windows boxes are in this zone. This =
will be
> a Bind server.)
> ------------
> |
> | delegation
> |
> ---------------
> | ms.test.net | (All Windows boxes are in this subzone. This =
will
> be a Windows 2000 DNS server.)
> ---------------
>
> The question I have is how to handle in-addr.arpa delegations. =
One
> side of our router has 172.16.111.0/24 addresses that contain a =
mixture of
> Windows and non-Windows systems. The other side of our router has
> 172.16.112.0/24 addresses that are primarily Windows boxes but have a =
small
> percentage of 'others'.
>
> Given this set up how should or can we handle in-addr.arpa
> delegations, or is another design 'better' and why?
Assuming everything stays static, you should be able to use the RFC 2317
technique (basically just aliasing the PTR records) to permit the PTRs =
in the
"mixed" reverse zone to resolve from the MS-DNS server.
However, if you want to implement Dynamic Update of reverse entries, =
you're
probably SOL, since last I heard, Win2K's Dynamic Update implementation =
wasn't
RFC 2317 aware...
- Kevin
More information about the bind-users
mailing list