North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IP address fee??
At 2:42 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Just because something accidentally manages to work at the moment doesn't mean that the whole concept is not fundamentally broken. You delegate zones, not IP addresses.That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for example).
Okay, so you've made 220.127.116.11.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.Have a look, for example, at the reverses for 18.104.22.168/28 and let me know if you can find anything wrong with those.
However, it doesn't appear to have a PTR record. Contrariwise, 22.214.171.124.in-addr.arpa has an SOA, NS RRs, and a PTR. I'm sure your other zones look similar.
Bizarre. Truly bizarre. Somehow, I feel compelled to make some remark about "perverting the course of the DNS", or somesuch.
It's a wonder you have any Internet connectivity at all.
Brad Knowles, <email@example.com>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)