Re: IP address fee??

[Peter van Dijk <peter () dataloss nl>]

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