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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.10101061401160.22935-100000>