North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IP address fee??

  • From: Brad Knowles
  • Date: Fri Sep 06 09:36:06 2002
  • Reply-by: Wed, 1 Jan 1984 12:34:56 +0100

At 2:42 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:

 That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less
 if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for
 example).
Just because something accidentally manages to work at the moment doesn't mean that the whole concept is not fundamentally broken. You delegate zones, not IP addresses.

 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.

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.


Bizarre. Truly bizarre. Somehow, I feel compelled to make some remark about "perverting the course of the DNS", or somesuch.

It's a wonder you have any Internet connectivity at all.

--
Brad Knowles, <[email protected]>

"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(+++)