delegation of subnet to remote DNS?

KSP ksp at att.com
Fri Jul 30 19:05:26 UTC 2004


Andrew,

> Since I am nowhere near SBC's pool of IPs, I'm just wondering a) if it's
> even possible or may cause more problems and b) if this is a common
> thing to do?

(a) Yes, it is possible for SBC to delegate authority of the reverse zone
to your nameservers.  If properly configured, it should not cause any
problems.

(b) It is common.

I assume your customer has been allocated a CIDR block smaller than a /24
from SBC.  If this is the case, SBC should delegate authority to your
servers adhearing to RFC 2317:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt

Give it a read...it will make sense after a while. :)

Good luck,

ksp

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, andrew kagan wrote:

> Hi All:
>
> I have a client for whom I'm providing DNS and webhosting services. They
> recently got static-IP ADSL service for their office through SBC. They've
> started running their own mail out of the office, but they're having
> connection problems with AOL, etc.
>
> SBC's reverse zone has a PTR of "adsl-XX-XX-XX-XXX.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net"
> (where the XX's are the IP address).
>
> The client says AOL told them that the NAME of the IP address was reason
> enough for them to block it...not even that the IP address itself was in a
> blacklist.
>
> SBC is refusing to change the PTR to a friendlier name. They suggested,
> since we're providing the DNS for the domain, that they delegate authority
> for the IP address reverse zone to us.
>
> Since I am nowhere near SBC's pool of IPs, I'm just wondering a) if it's
> even possible or may cause more problems and b) if this is a common thing to
> do?
>
> TIA, Andrew
>
>
>


More information about the bind-users mailing list