Re: Anyone from AT&T DNS?

[Matt Peterman <mpeterman () apple com>]

Got it! You’re the winner here. I just setup both of my zones the name way and obviously AT&T changed the way they did 
RDNS entries from when I got a /25 last November and this second /25 in June. Oh well!

Now I am running into the challenge of Route53 does seem to support creating an authoritative zone for 
"128/25.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.” It changes it to "128\05725.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.” every time… *sigh* If it 
isn't one thing its something else. 



> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:11 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Matt Peterman <mpeterman () apple com <mailto:mpeterman () apple com>> wrote:
> You are correct through that that link does show having the CIDR prefix length in the CNAME which is weird because 
> AT&T did not do this on my other /25 block. Interesting… Guess I need to do more digging. 
>
>
> if I had to guess I'd say that 'sometime long ago' they did one way, then decided to just follow the RFC ... which 
> probably also makes their provisioning automation much simpler.
>
> as I said, there are more than 1 way to skin the cat :( sadly you (and I, at least) were used to the 'old fashioned 
> method' welcome to 1998 (apparently!) :)
>  
> Matt
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:53 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com <mailto:morrowc.lists () gmail com>> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Matt Peterman <mpeterman () apple com <mailto:mpeterman () apple com>> wrote:
> > The PTR record CNAMEs for my /25 allocated prefix are all messed up. They are returning as
> > $ dig +short CNAME 128.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa
> > 128.128/25.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.
> >
> > Which is obviously a completely invalid DNS entry. I have opened a ticket through the web portal for “prov-dns” but 
> > Haven’t gotten a response for 7 days.
> >
> > If anyone from AT&T DNS or knows anyone from AT&T DNS that can help it would be appreciated!
> >
> >
> > isn't this one of the proper forms of reverse delegation in CIDR land? 
> >
> > like:
> > http://support.simpledns.com/kb/a146/how-to-sub-delegate-a-reverse-zone.aspx 
> > <http://support.simpledns.com/kb/a146/how-to-sub-delegate-a-reverse-zone.aspx>
> >
> > describes, or in a (perhaps more wordy fashion) in RFC2317?
> >   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2317 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2317>
> >
> > I think it may be the case that the NS hosts are not prepared for such a domain/record mapping though... the 
> > nameservers that would need to to be authoritative for a zone like:
> >
> >
> > 128/25.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.
> >
> > and have a bunch of PTR records like:
> >
> > 128             IN PTR foo.you.com <http://foo.you.com/>.
> > 129             IN PTR bar.you.com <http://bar.you.com/>.
> >
> > etc...