On Sep 27, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Sten Carlsen wrote: > Well, it depends on your clients. If they don't like .0 or .255, you would > have to have a rather large amount of ranges. > > E.g. range 10.1.1.1 10.1.1.254; range 10.1.2.1 10.1.2.254; ...... > > If OTOH you don't have any of those clients, other factors like hashing > algorithms and sizes come into play. This was recently discussed on the list, > so there should be information about the optimal way to slice the address > range from that point of view in the archives.
I think you're still thinking of this as a DHCP issue. DHCP was not mentioned by the OP, and this is not the DHCP Users list. We're not talking about an actual network of 10/8, we're talking about a DNS zone of 10.in-addr.arpa. There are no hashing algorithm or size issues at play, because we're not talking about DHCP. From a pure BIND/DNS perspective, there's nothing wrong with a 10.in-addr.arpa zone, either as a container of PTR records, a starting point for resolution (meaning it contains lots of delegations), or a mix of both. Regards, Chris Buxton BlueCat Networks > On 28/09/10 1:08, Warren Kumari wrote: >> >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Sten Carlsen wrote: >> >>> While a single zone is perfectly fine from a standards point of view, >>> "some" clients might be served addresses they don't like 10.x.x.0 and >>> 10.x.x.255. >>> >> But that would be DHCP config, no? >> >> >>> Just a reminder that this could be a reason if something appears weird. >> >> Fair 'nuff, >> >> W >>> On 27/09/10 23:07, Chris Buxton wrote: >>>> On Sep 27, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Christopher Cain wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi all. >>>>> >>>>> I am setting up a new appliance-based DNS solution that will contain a >>>>> fair number of separately managed Windows DNS slave servers (in addition >>>>> to the DNS appliances that will handle the . >>>>> >>>>> Currently there are just over 8000 host records that resolve to IP's in >>>>> the 10.x.x.x space. I am wrestling with whether or not I should create a >>>>> single 10.in-addr.arpa zone or if I should create 256 /16 zones (i.e. - >>>>> 0.10.in-addr.arpa to 255.10.in-addr.arpa). >>>>> >>>>> The reason I want to encompass the entire 10 space is so new arpa zones >>>>> will not have to be defined on all servers (specifically on the Windows >>>>> slaves) if a new part of the 10 space is used at some point. >>>>> >>>>> Any recommendations or comments would be greatly appreciated. >>>>> >>>> There's nothing wrong with a single 10.in-addr.arpa zone. If you need to >>>> break it up amongst different master servers, a 10.in-addr.arpa zone can >>>> still be used to delegate child zones to their respective servers. >>>> >>>> You might break it up if, for example, the DDNS traffic from DHCP clients >>>> across the enterprise would be too much for one master server to >>>> accommodate. The BIND name server writes to its journal file >>>> synchronously, for every update, and this can be quite a bottleneck. (The >>>> same is true for slave servers, which keep a journal file for zone >>>> transfers in order to service IXFR requests sent to them.) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Chris Buxton >>>> BlueCat Networks >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bind-users mailing list >>>> >>>> bind-users@lists.isc.org >>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >>> -- >>> Best regards >>> >>> Sten Carlsen >>> >>> No improvements come from shouting: >>> >>> "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bind-users mailing list >>> bind-users@lists.isc.org >>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> > > -- > Best regards > > Sten Carlsen > > No improvements come from shouting: > > "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" > _______________________________________________ > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
_______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
