reverse delegating range of ip addresses

Doug Barton DougB at
Tue Jan 21 22:43:30 UTC 2003

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Kevin Darcy wrote:

> Doug Barton wrote:
> >
> > 39-50   NS
> > 39-50   NS
> > $GENERATE 39-50 $ CNAME $.39-50
> >
> > Then the name servers you're delegating to just need one zone,
> >
> Well, for only 12 reverse names, it could go either way. I personally
> think that delegating each reverse name is a more logical,
> easy-to-understand way of doing "classless delegation" than RFC 2317-style
> aliasing, but of course the price to be paid is more delegations in the
> parent zone, and more zones to be defined/maintained on the delegated
> nameservers. At a certain point, these disadvantages outweigh the
> advantages, but different folks will put that "more-pain-than-gain" line
> in different places.

Agreed, but since the original poster was missing the forest for the
delegation trees, I thought another way of looking at it might help. Not
to mention, when I first started doing rfc 2317 delegations I also found
them cumbersome and difficult to understand, but now that I've done dozens
of them over the years (and taught several of our ISP's how to do them
properly), they seem quite "natural" to me.

Each to his own,


   "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power.
      And in this great conflict, ...  we will see freedom's victory."
	- George W. Bush, President of the United States
          State of the Union, January 28, 2002

         Do YOU Yahoo!?

More information about the bind-users mailing list