From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Dec 14 15:32:39 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21591
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:32:39 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21580
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:32:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from marcs@znep.com)
Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost)
	by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id QAA03086;
	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:31:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA04753; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:31:50 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:31:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
To: Dan Jacobowitz <drow@drow.net>
cc: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: weird IP address
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971214173517.29424A-100000@mars.abcinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971214163117.2250f-100000@alive.znep.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Dan Jacobowitz wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Jim Shankland wrote:
> 
> > Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> writes:
> > 
> > > I am saying you can use whatever IP you want for a nameserver
> > > when registering a domain via the InterNIC and they will not
> > > trying to figure out if you are authorized to use it.  The
> > > InterNIC will list that nameserver in the DNS for that domain,
> > > will add a glue record for the nameserver, and will create a
> > > host record.  You can't have multiple host records for one IP,
> > > though.
> > 
> > Back when domain registration was free, InterNIC would actually
> > check the name servers you named, making sure that they were reachable
> > and had proper NS and SOA records for your new domain.  If not, your
> > registration was put on hold until you fixed things.
> > 
> > Now that they're charging money for the service, evidently they
> > can no longer afford to do this :-(.
> 
> 
> It strikes me as a little odd that InterNIC puts reverse DNS for the
> nameservers on their root servers - in fact, judging by my past
> experiences, I could ahve sworn that they did not.
> 
> (In fact, hgaving just gone to check a few others, they do not)
> 
> Apparently they only do so if no other NS is responsible for ther reverse
> range specified!
> 
> Go figure.  An InterNIC bug?

Huh?  Why are you saying they are doing reverse DNS entries?  Nothing
posted here suggests that.