Re: dname reverse delegation

2015-10-13 Thread Niall O'Reilly
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:40:30 +0100, Paul A wrote: > > I have a few /24 that I want to delegate using DNAME. Are you expecting to save yourself trouble by doing so? If not, you should probably reconsider. If you decide DNAME is a useful trick, bear in mind that what DNAME does is not real

Re: RPZ - override TXT records

2015-10-13 Thread Wolfgang Riedel
Hi Mukund, Hi John, I would need a way to insert oder override a TXT record while still don’t touch all other records and let then pass through in a transparent way. So just having this would be best for my use-case but this removes all other RR. www.cisco.com TXT "CISCO-CLS=app-name:H

Re: dname reverse delegation

2015-10-13 Thread Tony Finch
Paul A wrote: > I have a few /24 that I want to delegate using DNAME. > Lets says I have 192.168.13.0/24 how would I go about doing reserve on the > forwarding server using DNAME. Coincidentally I just published this draft less than three hours ago, and it describes how to use DNAME to reduce th

Re: dname reverse delegation

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Andrews
Why are you trying to complicate the lookup process unnecessarially? Just delegate 13.168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. People over use stuff that really isn't needed and by doing so turn a relatively simple proceedure into a complicated mess. RFC 2317 delegation techniques really should only be used for /

dname reverse delegation

2015-10-13 Thread Paul A
I have a few /24 that I want to delegate using DNAME. Lets says I have 192.168.13.0/24 how would I go about doing reserve on the forwarding server using DNAME. Currently on the forwarding server I have NS ns.isp.com ;; DNAME 0/24 ;;

Re: SRV Request to DNS

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Andrews
To answer the question. What you do when given a name and a port is protocol specific. Read the protocol specification. Note if the port is the well known port for the protocol then it may be ignored. If the protocol does not specify most developers will just implement the protocol over that p

RE: SRV Request to DNS

2015-10-13 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA)
Harshith, I think you need to understand the proportionality here: the *vast*majority* of the time, the client already knows the port (because ports tend to be pre-assigned for specific services), and only needs to resolve the FQDN to one or more address records (A and/or records), in order

Re: SRV Request to DNS

2015-10-13 Thread Chris Buxton
On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Harshith Mulky wrote: > Let us say we are having a FQDN and we need to Resolve it. It goes through > the procedure of determining the IP and Port using NAPTR/SRV/A query > mechanisms > > The question I have is if I have a FQDN with a Port Number already > determine