nanog mailing list archives
RE: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??]
From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles () skynet be>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:04:36 +0200
At 10:28 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Yes, they get returned, whoo hoo: 8<--------- jeroen@purgatory:~$ dig 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa any
That could just be your local caching nameserver. You need to ask his nameservers the same question:
% dig @ns.dataloss.nl. 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa any ; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> @ns.dataloss.nl. 192.122.109.193.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: ;192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION:192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa. 2560 IN SOA ns.dataloss.nl. hostmaster.192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa. 1031343156 16384 2048 1048576 2560
192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa. 259200 IN NS ns.dataloss.nl. 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa. 259200 IN NS ns3.dataloss.nl. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns.dataloss.nl. 259200 IN A 193.109.122.194 ns3.dataloss.nl. 86400 IN A 193.109.122.215 ;; Query time: 73 msec ;; SERVER: 193.109.122.194#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.
Or any other IP you would randomly pick actually... show me one that doesn't have this behaviour :)
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?
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.
You are actually saying that one can't setup a DNS for a reverse host then ;)
No, just saying that if you're going to do it, you should do it the proper way -- using RFC 2317.
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.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles () skynet be> "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(+++)
Current thread:
- Re: IP address fee??, (continued)
- Re: IP address fee?? Brad Knowles (Sep 06)
- Re: IP address fee?? Brad Knowles (Sep 06)
- classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Peter van Dijk (Sep 06)
- Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Brad Knowles (Sep 06)
- Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Peter van Dijk (Sep 06)
- Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Brad Knowles (Sep 06)
- Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Peter van Dijk (Sep 09)
- Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Brad Knowles (Sep 09)
- RE: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Jeroen Massar (Sep 06)
- RE: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Jeroen Massar (Sep 06)
- RE: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Brad Knowles (Sep 06)
- Re: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??] Peter van Dijk (Sep 09)
- Re: IP address fee?? Christopher Schulte (Sep 05)
- Re: IP address fee?? Stephen Sprunk (Sep 05)
- Re: IP address fee?? Forrest W. Christian (Sep 05)
- Re: IP address fee?? Forrest W. Christian (Sep 05)
- Message not available
- Re: IP address fee?? Ted Fischer (Sep 06)
- Re: IP address fee?? bdragon (Sep 08)
- Re: IP address fee?? Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 09)