> > On 23.01.09 23:06, Barry Margolin wrote: > > > Why don't you just use normal reverse DNS: > > > > > > zone for 1.1.1.in-addr.arpa > > > > > > 1 IN PTR metis.local. > > > IN PTR bob-www-sol-l01.local. > > > > accorging to the above, metis.local is a CNAME, so the > > reverse should point to bob-www-sol-l01.local. - pointing it > > to metis.local. would be incorrect. > > And although two or PTRs usually make no problems, it's > > recommended not to do that, because some SWs jsut can't > > handle that (even if they would all be correct). So, keep > > only PTR to bob-www-sol-l01.local.
On 26.01.09 08:20, Ben Bridges wrote: > Section 3.3.12 of RFC 1035 (PTR RDATA format) appears to say that no > constraints are placed upon a domain-name that is the RDATA of a PTR > record, that it is simple data and no special meaning or further > processing is associated with it (hence implying that it is ok if that > domain-name is defined as a CNAME somewhere else in the domain space). > Is that not the case? Is there some other part of the DNS specification > that forbids it? RFC 2181 sect. 10.2. mentions that "...the relevant section of RFC1034 (section 3.6.2) indicates that the value of a PTR record should be a canonical name." "Note that while the value of a PTR record must not be an alias"... I know about SWs that reject the PTR if it points to CNAME. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. WinError #99999: Out of error messages. _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
