I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the zone
served internally, and leave only the publically-reachable hosts in the
public zone. But this client, having a large number of hosts on
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the zone
served internally, and leave only the publically-reachable hosts in the
public zone. But this client, having a large
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the zone
served internally, and leave only the publically-reachable hosts in the
public zone. But this
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the zone
served internally, and leave only the publically-reachable hosts in
Yes, please, let's have that flamewar all over again... Or you couldjust
read
one or more of the previous flamewars and spare us another round. Here's
a
starting point:
The problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't
have an end-point. If someone would summarize both
the pros and the
On Monday 18 Sep 2006 07:40, you wrote:
I know the common wisdom is that putting 192.168 addresses in a public
zonefile is right up there with kicking babies who have just had their
candy stolen, but I'm really struggling to come up with anything more
authoritative than just because, now eat
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 03:18:07AM -0500, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the
public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the
zone
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the zone
served internally, and leave only the publically-reachable hosts in the
public zone.
This sounds like you have
At 04:33 AM 9/18/2006, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 03:18:07AM -0500, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such
into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 08:36:44AM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:33 AM 9/18/2006, Jim Mercer wrote:
if the hosts inside the VPN can only be accessed by hostnames served up
inside
the VPN, then it is more likely the users can be confident that their data
is actually traversing the VPN.
Likewise our inbound sanity route-maps deny all RFC1918 space.
--
Michael Nicks
Network Engineer
KanREN
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o: +1-785-856-9800 x221
m: +1-913-378-6516
Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 18 Sep 2006 07:40, you wrote:
I know the common wisdom is that putting 192.168 addresses in
I know the common wisdom is that putting 192.168 addresses in a
public zonefile is right up there with kicking babies who have just
had their candy stolen, but I'm really struggling to come up with
anything more authoritative than just because, now eat your
brussel sprouts.
I think the
At 04:40 PM 18/9/06, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into
the public DNS zone for a client.
...
But this client, having a large number of hosts on RFC1918
space and a VPN for external people to get to it,
...
What happens when the external
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Fred Baker wrote:
I know the common wisdom is that putting 192.168 addresses in a
public zonefile is right up there with kicking babies who have just
had their candy stolen, but I'm really struggling to come up with
anything more authoritative than just
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy is to have a subdomain of the zone
served internally, and leave only the publically-reachable hosts in the
public zone. But this client, having a large
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:57:43 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
It can make sense:
I am sending my mails mostly from lumbamba.peter-dambier.de (192.168.48.226)
my router is krzach.peter-dambier.de (192.168.48.2)
my mailer is echnaton.peter-dambier.de (192.168.48.228)
My traceroute looks ok
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:40:04 AM GMT-0500
Subject: Why is RFC1918 space in public DNS evil?
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into the public
DNS zone for a client. My
On Sep 18, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Elijah Savage wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such into
the public
DNS zone for a client.
Another option is split-horizon DNS for the internal stuff, if it
never needs to be publicly visible.
- Original Message -
From: Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:17:01 PM GMT-0500
Subject: Re: Why is RFC1918 space in public DNS evil?
On Sep 18, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Elijah Savage wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal
Intelsat has shutdown the primary satellite link for Zimbabwe's state
communications company for non-payment, which has affected most of the
ISPs in the country.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Sean Donelan wrote:
Intelsat has shutdown the primary satellite link for Zimbabwe's state
communications company for non-payment, which has affected most of the
ISPs in the country.
I can't really blame them. I doubt the Internet is considered critical
21 matches
Mail list logo
