[26660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Brown)
Tue Jan 11 14:33:41 2000
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:28:28 -0500
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet@graffiti.com>
To: Chris Cappuccio <chris@dqc.org>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@patho.gen.nz>, Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000111142828.A13069@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0001101738310.17839-100000@dqc.org>; from chris@dqc.org on Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 05:43:10PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> | > Ny using octet boundaries, you're making an inference that the IP
> | > addresses are being used in a classful fashion. It's doubtful this will
> | > be the case in today's network.
> |
> | I don't buy your logic. By that reasoning, PTR records are not supported
> | on today's network either, since they also work on octet boundaries.
> |
>
>Yes but the methods for delegating PTR records that are smaller then a /24
>are ugly hacks. See RFC 2317 if you don't already know why.
actually...the real problem is that since ip addresses aren't
necessarily allocated on octet boundaries, you'd need more than one
set of mx records at the boundary point in the dns. just having
165.165.in-addr.arpa. MX 10 noc.tor.hookup.net.
MX 20 vertex.tor.hookup.net.
wouldn't work if 165.165.0.0/16 was divided up into a few /18 or /19
blocks and used by different providers.
>Sorry, off topic, just had to get my gripe in there.
perhaps. :)
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
