Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:19:26 -0700 From: Greg White <gregw-freebsd-stable@greg.cex.ca> To: FreeBSD-Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Classless Reverse (was Re: sdflkj) Message-ID: <20011004121926.F46255@greg.cex.ca> In-Reply-To: <20011004085957.A22436@cartman.private.techsupport.co.uk>; from ceri@techsupport.co.uk on Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:59:57AM %2B0100 References: <04e601c14c68$8ce4a8f0$0a01a8c0@den2> <3BBBAA54.7BC9F865@tenebras.com> <20011004085957.A22436@cartman.private.techsupport.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:59:57AM +0100, Ceri wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:16:20PM -0700, Michael Sierchio said: > > > > My apologies. My ISP's absolute refusal to delegate reverse entries > > for my domain and /29 net is the problem. They gave me CNAME entries > > instead of PTR records > > Umm, you can't delegate reverse DNS for a /29 _without_ using CNAMEs. Sure you can. If one was to do it with BIND, the owner of the /24 (or better) creates individual delegations for each IP address. The new delegated server serves up one zone per IP address. That's how they used to do it before RFC2317, and the reason RFC2317 was written. It's possible, but with BIND it is a PITA, that's all. (Of course with tinydns, it's just as easy either way, but that's a bit OT). :) I wondered how come some ISPs refused to do anything but RFC2317 style delegation... Perhaps they too thought it was impossible. -- Greg White To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011004121926.F46255>