|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: is reverse dns required? (policy question)
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:03:55 +0100, Andre Oppermann said: > Reverse zone file for 10.0.0.0/24: > > 1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR mail.example.com. > > _send._smtp._srv.1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN TXT "1" > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-03.txt The problem with that is that for *Steven* to benefit from it, *I'd* have to get the appropriate people here to stick in the appropriate stuff in the in-addr.arpa zones for 128.173/16 and 198.82/16. In other words, it suffers from the same deployment problem as SPF records. (Actually, locally, it's harder to deploy because SPF needs one TXT at the top of the zone, which is mostly static and amenable to hand-editing - those __srv records on the other hand are down in zones that are automagically written by software which then needs to be modified to support splatting out the additional TXT record each time...) In other news, we discovered that when we published our SPF record, it managed to push the DNS response over 512 bytes, as we already had several TXT records and 5 NS/A records got returned as well - and we got bit by the usual places that don't do TCP/53 or EDNS0. Anybody else hit that one accidentally? (We ended up jettisoning several TXT's and got it down to 410, so no problem now). Attachment:
pgp00009.pgp
|