Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:06:46 -0500 (EST)
From:      Mitch Collinsworth <mitch@ccmr.cornell.edu>
To:        Peter Brezny <peter@sysadmin-inc.com>
Cc:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: general question re: PTR records.
Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101061401160.22935-100000@ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000101c0781d$9b4a5ae0$46010a0a@sysadmininc.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Peter Brezny wrote:

> Why are PTR records placed in zone db files separate from all other resource
> records?
 
Because they're not in the same zone.


> For small domains, wouldn't it be simpler to just have your reverse ip to
> name mappings in the same zone db file as your forward name to ip mappings?
 
No.  There's not necessarily a one-to-one mapping.  Consider the case
of a web server that servers hundreds of domain names for example.


> Something like
> 
> jack.com.	IN	A	x.y.z.q
> ...
> q.z.y.x-in.addr.arpa.	IN	PTR	jack.com.
 
Notice that jack.com. belongs to the com. zone, while q.z.y.x.in-addr.arpa.
belongs to the in-addr.arpa. zone.


> I realize the advantage of having one big reverse zone db file for your
> subnet as far as the amount of raw data entry is required, but for a small
> host it seems a little more straight forward to put everything for a domain
> in one db file.  I've read through all of ch4 in dns & bind, and haven't
> come across anything that says you couldn't do it this way...

You can't do it.


> Will named accept this?
 
No.


> Is it just a really bad idea?
 
It's an interesting idea, but it assumes a picture of the world that
doesn't correspond with actual reality.

-Mitch



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.10101061401160.22935-100000>