IP (not zone) delegation

Danny Mayer mayer at gis.net
Thu Sep 19 03:44:09 UTC 2002


At 04:41 PM 9/17/02, Dean Carrera wrote:

>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?

BIND doesn't have a DNS management console. Win2K DNS should
be discussed in a Microsoft news group.

Danny

>-----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