At 23:54 -0800 3/16/05, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ed's comments:
If that were true, then, there would be no such thing as recursive resolvers
and all clients would have to have recursive libraries. If I ask a recursive
resolver for a foreign A record, I usually get an A record in response.
If I ask a
Robert Bonomi wrote:
OK, what am I missing?
*ASSUMPTION*:
The holder of the /16 _has_ delegated rDNS for the 32 /24s to the /19 owner.
The /19 owner can, on it's nameserver, run an authoritative zone for
the /16 -- with _its_ /24s listed explicitly, and a wildcard pointing
back to the rDNS
At 20:22 -0800 3/15/05, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by sideways delegations. It is
perfectly acceptable, for example, for:
a.root-servers.net returns 16.172.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns1.arin.net.
ns1.arin.net returns 124.16.172.in-addr.apra. IN NS ns1.foobar.com.
ns1.foobar.com.
At 13:48 -0800 3/16/05, David Raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Edward Lewis wrote:
aside) to uphold. In the global DNS, no matter where you ask
question, you should get the same answer.
Really?
Yes.
dig @ns1.arin.net 124.16.172.in-addr.arpa. IN NS
and
dig @ns1.foobar.com
2) Use DNAME, RFC 2672. Good luck.
(http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/pubs/tn/index.pl?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.html)
3) Use RFC 2317. I encourage my competitors to operate this way.
Note: DNAME is equivalent to RFC 2317. In both cases this
will break the customers expectation that
At 16:56 -0500 3/16/05, Edward Lewis wrote:
servers in the first belong to 209/8, the latter to 209.173.48/8.
Whoops - the last is /24.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
I'm afraid that above is not an accurate or workable sequence of events.
Not accurate in the sense that I left out some of the queries and left
it as a summary of the relevant ones, however...
[...bind 9.3.1...] snip
Note too that this is from a fresh (empty) cache. Some queries are not
needed
Our organization has a /19 assignment from ARIN. We have given
portions of this space to several other companies within our
corporate umbrella. Several of these other companies have their own
nameservers, and would like to be able to manage DNS on their own
for their in-addr.arpa. blocks. What
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:02:22PM -0500, Mike Sawicki wrote:
Our organization has a /19 assignment from ARIN. We have given
portions of this space to several other companies within our
corporate umbrella. Several of these other companies have their own
nameservers, and would like to be
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Mike Sawicki wrote:
Our organization has a /19 assignment from ARIN. We have given portions
of this space to several other companies within our corporate umbrella.
Several of these other companies have their own nameservers, and would
like to be able to manage DNS on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either by doing DNS delegation on the zone boundary or by SWIP'ing the
space to the other company.
You can SWIP it yes, but that won't help DNS on small blocks like /24's.
It is very easy to do DNS delegation, say if you have 128.0.0.0/19, and
you want to delegate
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 14:12:12 2005
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:12:10 -0500
From: Robert Blayzor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mike Sawicki [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Delegating /24's from a /19
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either by doing DNS
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 14:12:12 2005
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:12:10 -0500
From: Robert Blayzor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mike Sawicki [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Delegating /24's from a /19
[EMAIL
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Robert Blayzor wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either by doing DNS delegation on the zone boundary or by SWIP'ing the
space to the other company.
You can SWIP it yes, but that won't help DNS on small blocks like /24's.
Huh?
Unless I've missed something really
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either by doing DNS delegation on the zone boundary or by SWIP'ing
the space to the other company.
You can SWIP it yes, but that won't help DNS on small blocks like /24's.
SWIPping the large block won't help. SWIPping the /24s will.
OK, what am I missing?
*ASSUMPTION*:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
--==D714B409A8D84E671065==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either by doing DNS delegation on the zone boundary or
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 18:51:46 2005
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:51:33 +1100 (EST)
From: Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Delegating /24's from a /19
Cc:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
--==D714B409A8D84E671065
...snip...
Um, why?
Firstly he does NOT have authority for the /16 reverse. Lots
of latent problems there.
Nor is he claiming it. Nowhere on the internet is there anything saying
that the entire /16 should be looked up against his nameserver. No
reference
should exist pointing to
Um, why?
Firstly he does NOT have authority for the /16 reverse. Lots
of latent problems there.
Nor is he claiming it. Nowhere on the internet is there anything saying
that the entire /16 should be looked up against his nameserver. No=20
reference
should exist pointing
19 matches
Mail list logo
