also sprach Chris Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0541 +0100]: > This is sort of the function of canonical names. "Other" names for the IP > besides the absolute name (or Loopback name in our parlance). But CNAME's > are deprecated for other reasons. I personally never had any problems using > them.
me neither. deprecated? i know that most mailers will complain if the MX is a CNAME, so i always have mail.madduck.net have it's own A record, even though the actual hostname also maps to that A record... > >All the people who say "but I don't control the reverse for my IP(s)" > >don't understand the issue ... it's up to the registered contact for > >the block to make sure reverse resolution works. Of course that means > >resolving to A records that the contact also controls. This is all > >spelled out in the RFCs and best practice documents. > > It has been possible for some time now to allocate really really small IP > blocks. I had a /27 allocated to me in ARIN once. I controlled my own > reverse lookups that way. I don't know how small they will go though. /29, although i've seen /30's. problem is that with that much of a subnet, you are wasting a lot of IPs. the efficiency in terms of IP usage for /30 is 50%!!! -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "a rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral." -- antoine de saint-exupery
pgp1WxsRhKeVS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
