North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: lame delegations

  • From: Valdis.Kletnieks
  • Date: Fri Aug 18 16:10:44 2000

> RFC 1912, Sec 2.1:

Which is 'Informational', not standards track...

> " Make sure your PTR and A records match.  For every IP address, there
>    should be a matching PTR record in the domain.  If a
>    host is multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP
>    addresses have a corresponding PTR record (not just the first one).

> I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this RFC should be
> ignored.  I have seen many problems when this is ignored.

The major problem here is software packages that can't deal with the
possibility of setups like this:  CNAME  A    198.168.1,1

Yes, major software vendors are still managing to get this Totally Wrong.

And when somebody at the VP level says something WILL be deployed in time
for another non-negotiable deadline (for instance, 25K students returning
to campus), you end up with some ugly ad-crockery with PTRs ;)

Yes, we'll fix the PTRs.  Soon as we get a patch from the vendor.  'Nuff
said. ;)

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

Attachment: pgp00011.pgp
Description: PGP signature