[51771] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP address fee??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Fri Sep 6 09:40:49 2002
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:40:17 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <a05200504b99e5a5e40e2@[10.0.1.60]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:32:00PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.
>
> Okay, so you've made 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa a zone
> (delegated from bit.nl within 122.109.193.in-addr.arpa, which is
> delegated from RIPE's 193.in-addr.arpa), and this zone has an SOA and
> NS records defined. Other than the fact that this zone is within the
> in-addr.arpa tree, this would seem to be fairly normal behaviour for
> any other zone in any other tree.
in-addr.arpa is not special from a DNS point-of-view.
> However, it doesn't appear to have a PTR record. Contrariwise,
> 193.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa has an SOA, NS RRs, and a PTR. I'm sure
> your other zones look similar.
Indeed 192 doesn't have a PTR - it's the network number.
193 and a few others do indeed have PTR's.
> Bizarre. Truly bizarre. Somehow, I feel compelled to make some
> remark about "perverting the course of the DNS", or somesuch.
What am I doing wrong in this case? A zone is delegated, the
nameserver receiving the delegation serves this zone. No apexes
mismatch.
Greetz, Peter
--
peter@dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
