North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??]
At 10:28 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Jeroen Massar wrote:
That could just be your local caching nameserver. You need to ask his nameservers the same question:Yes, they get returned, whoo hoo: 8<--------- jeroen@purgatory:~$ dig 220.127.116.11.in-addr.arpa any
% dig @ns.dataloss.nl. 18.104.22.168.in-addr.arpa any
; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> @ns.dataloss.nl. 22.214.171.124.in-addr.arpa any
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 56202
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;126.96.36.199.in-addr.arpa. IN ANY
;; ANSWER SECTION:
188.8.131.52.in-addr.arpa. 2560 IN SOA ns.dataloss.nl. hostmaster.184.108.40.206.in-addr.arpa. 1031343156 16384 2048 1048576 2560
220.127.116.11.in-addr.arpa. 259200 IN NS ns.dataloss.nl.
18.104.22.168.in-addr.arpa. 259200 IN NS ns3.dataloss.nl.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns.dataloss.nl. 259200 IN A 22.214.171.124
ns3.dataloss.nl. 86400 IN A 126.96.36.199
;; Query time: 73 msec
;; SERVER: 188.8.131.52#53(ns.dataloss.nl.)
;; WHEN: Fri Sep 6 23:00:13 2002
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 171
Fortunately, in this case, we still get the same information.
That's really more a factor of the nameserver which provides the answer -- did you ask their servers directly, or did you ask a local caching nameserver which could have answered some or all of that from cache?Or any other IP you would randomly pick actually... show me one that doesn't have this behaviour :)
Are you sure about that? IIRC, the definitions of CNAME records and what they can point to are pretty strict.184.108.40.206.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 ;)
No, just saying that if you're going to do it, you should do it the proper way -- using RFC 2317.You are actually saying that one can't setup a DNS for a reverse host then ;)
Just because something hasn't actually been made officially illegal doesn't mean that it's not a really bad idea.Cool, why does it work then? <grin>
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(+++)