[51766] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP address fee??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Fri Sep 6 08:43:10 2002
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <a05200502b99e4dd04f8c@[10.0.1.60]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:21:35PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 11:11 AM +0200 2002/09/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > And you can do it even easier without RFC2317:
> >
> >http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/avoid-rfc-2317-delegation.html
>
> Nope. Fundamentally broken. Delegations must occur at the apex of
> a zone.
That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less
if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for
example).
Also, it's easy (with tinydns) or not very hard (with BIND) to
implement given solution without violating your condition.
Have a look, for example, at the reverses for 193.109.122.192/28 and
let me know if you can find anything wrong with those.
Greetz, Peter
--
peter@dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
