On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:32:00PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: [snip] > > Have a look, for example, at the reverses for 193.109.122.192/28 and > > let me know if you can find anything wrong with those. > > Okay, so you've made 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa a zone > (delegated from bit.nl within 122.109.193.in-addr.arpa, which is > delegated from RIPE's 193.in-addr.arpa), and this zone has an SOA and > NS records defined. Other than the fact that this zone is within the > in-addr.arpa tree, this would seem to be fairly normal behaviour for > any other zone in any other tree.
in-addr.arpa is not special from a DNS point-of-view. > However, it doesn't appear to have a PTR record. Contrariwise, > 193.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa has an SOA, NS RRs, and a PTR. I'm sure > your other zones look similar. Indeed 192 doesn't have a PTR - it's the network number. 193 and a few others do indeed have PTR's. > Bizarre. Truly bizarre. Somehow, I feel compelled to make some > remark about "perverting the course of the DNS", or somesuch. What am I doing wrong in this case? A zone is delegated, the nameserver receiving the delegation serves this zone. No apexes mismatch. Greetz, Peter -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
