North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: classless delegation [Re: IP address fee??]

  • From: Brad Knowles
  • Date: Fri Sep 06 17:11:16 2002
  • Reply-by: Wed, 1 Jan 1984 12:34:56 +0100
At 10:28 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Jeroen Massar wrote:


 Yes, they get returned, whoo hoo:
 8<---------
 [email protected]:~$ 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, <[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(+++)