I think he was talking about multiple PTR records for a single IP, not multiple PTR records all returning the same hostname (which agreed, is clearly a reasonable usage). It does look like bind will do it, but seems like an unusual thing to do; although I didn't see an explicit mention of it being poor practice in RFC 1912, or a couple other RFCs I skimmed, but I'm far from a DNS guru. Is there a legitimate use to that?
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;149.50.14.10.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; ANSWER SECTION: 149.50.14.10.in-addr.arpa. 604800 IN PTR hostname.domain.com. 149.50.14.10.in-addr.arpa. 604800 IN PTR hostname-2.domain.com. regards Rob On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ben Finney < bignose+hates-s...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > /dev/rob0 <r...@gmx.co.uk> writes: > > > You CAN have as many PTR records as you want on any name. However, > > it's unlikely to do anything useful. > > It can be quite useful, since machines can have multiple NICs on the > same network (for redundancy, among other reasons) each presenting a > different IP address. > > -- > \ “The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a | > `\ question, but to post the wrong information.” —Aahz | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss