[51854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Mon Sep 9 07:44:44 2002
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:44:22 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <a0520050ab99ec796da34@[10.0.1.60]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:04:36PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
[snip]
> > 60.1.0.10.in-addr.arpa. CNAME bla-reverse.example.org.
> > bla-reverse.example.org. PTR bla.example.org.
> > bla.example.org. A 10.0.1.60
> >
> > What's wrong with that? No RFC against it ;)
>
> Are you sure about that? IIRC, the definitions of CNAME records
> and what they can point to are pretty strict.
If that is illegal, then so is RFC2317 :)
> > Cool, why does it work then? <grin>
>
> Just because something hasn't actually been made officially
> illegal doesn't mean that it's not a really bad idea.
It seems to me RFC2317 is pushing the edge of standards more than my
solution is.
Greetz, Peter
--
peter@dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
