On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 03:12 -0400, Luke S Crawford wrote:
> bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
> > or - the more modern approach is to let the node (w/ proper authorization)
> > do a secure dynamic update of the revserse map - so the forward and reverse
> > delegations match. ... a -VERY- use
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
> or - the more modern approach is to let the node (w/ proper authorization)
> do a secure dynamic update of the revserse map - so the forward and reverse
> delegations match. ... a -VERY- useful technique.
I have a question. Is this an abuse problem? som
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:22:17AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:
> on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:26:59AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> > Don't be afraid to create zones for each
> > location, DNS lends itself to this kind of
> > hierarchy naturally.
> >
> > I find this is tidier than lengthy A records.
>
on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:39:49AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> On 27/03/2009, at 3:26 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
>> Especially if they're spewing spam and viruses like a firehose.
>
> If you're talking about our net blocks, then
> please do drop me a line. We're quite serious
> about minimising the
On 27/03/2009, at 3:26 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
Especially if they're spewing spam and viruses like a firehose.
If you're talking about our net blocks, then
please do drop me a line. We're quite serious
about minimising the spam sent from our network,
and we'd be happy to investigate.
Unfo
on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 02:14:27AM +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> [snip interode related hostnames such as this]
>
> > > > adsl.adelaide.on.net
>
> > > That's a safe assumption.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it's not. Even more unfortunately, we see m
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009, Steven Champeon wrote:
[snip interode related hostnames such as this]
> > > adsl.adelaide.on.net
> > That's a safe assumption.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not. Even more unfortunately, we see more junk
> from their generic statics than we do from their obvious dynamics.
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:44:57PM +1100, Martin Barry wrote:
> $quoted_author = "Steven Champeon" ;
> >
> > adsl.internode.on.net
> > gaw.internode.on.net
> > padsl.internode.on.net
> > adsl.adelaide.on.net
> > link.internode.on.net
> > as0.adl2.internode.on.net
> > lns
$quoted_author = "Steven Champeon" ;
>
> adsl.internode.on.net
> gaw.internode.on.net
> padsl.internode.on.net
> adsl.adelaide.on.net
> link.internode.on.net
> as0.adl2.internode.on.net
> lns1.adl2.internode.on.net
...and so on and so on.
You do realise that they were all
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:26:59AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> Don't be afraid to create zones for each
> location, DNS lends itself to this kind of
> hierarchy naturally.
>
> I find this is tidier than lengthy A records.
>
> I.e, hostname.location.domain
And yet makes it more difficult for anyone
Don't be afraid to create zones for each
location, DNS lends itself to this kind of
hierarchy naturally.
I find this is tidier than lengthy A records.
I.e, hostname.location.domain
This also makes your zones a little more
manageable (although on all accounts, some
simple automation will ensure
Matthew F. Ringel wrote:
Derivability: Being able to synthesize the name with a few pieces of
data makes naming and debugging easier.
I agree. Remember, this is mostly going to show up in log files, and
they need to be easily skimmed by even the newest staff.
Longer is okay: Barring softw
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:30:07AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 06:38:55 pm br...@yoafrica.com
> wrote:
>
> > Slighty related...
> >
> > Can people please post their recommended reverse dns
> > naming conventions for a small ISP with growth and
> > scalability in mind. I a
on Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:44:15PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The recommendations in this draft proposal have worked for me:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
Also:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06
http://t
On 21/03/2009, at 11:30 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
if you really don't care about the actual node, then you should map
the
numbers to topologically significant names - after all, the reverse
map
follows topology, not some goofball - layer 9 - ego trip thing.
Agreed - and its
On Saturday 21 March 2009 06:38:55 pm br...@yoafrica.com
wrote:
> Slighty related...
>
> Can people please post their recommended reverse dns
> naming conventions for a small ISP with growth and
> scalability in mind. I already have one drawn up, but I
> would like to contrast and compare :D
As
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: REVERSE DNS Practices.
Slighty related...
Can people please post their recommended reverse dns naming conventions for a
small ISP with growth and scalability in mind.
I already have one drawn up, but I would like to contrast and compare :D
Thanks
On 21 Mar 2009 10:32:30 -
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:00 AM, wrote:
> the 20th or 21st century answer?
> if you really don't care about the actual node, then you should map
the
> numbers to topologically significant names - after all, the reverse
map
> follows topology, not some goofball - layer 9 - ego tr
the 20th or 21st century answer?
if you really don't care about the actual node, then you should map the
numbers to topologically significant names - after all, the reverse map
follows topology, not some goofball - layer 9 - ego trip thing.
or - the more modern approach is to let the node (
Slighty related...
Can people please post their recommended reverse dns naming conventions for a
small ISP with growth and scalability in mind.
I already have one drawn up, but I would like to contrast and compare :D
Thanks
On 21 Mar 2009 10:32:30 -, John Levine wrote:
>> I want to ask s
> I want to ask some folks out there that maintain reverse DNS queries
>of their respective IP blocks. I want to know if there is a need for
>me to contact my upstream provider. I am in charge of 2 /24's under
>LACNIC. I've already registered my DNS servers on LACNIC. but for some
>weird reason it'
hi,
I want to ask some folks out there that maintain reverse DNS queries
of their respective IP blocks. I want to know if there is a need for
me to contact my upstream provider. I am in charge of 2 /24's under
LACNIC. I've already registered my DNS servers on LACNIC. but for some
weird reason it'
22 matches
Mail list logo
