IP address fee??

Fri Sep 6 13:32:00 UTC 2002

At 2:42 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:

>  That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less
>  if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for
>  example).

	Just because something accidentally manages to work at the moment 
doesn't mean that the whole concept is not fundamentally broken.  You 
delegate zones, not IP addresses.

>  Have a look, for example, at the reverses for 193.109.122.192/28 and
>  let me know if you can find anything wrong with those.

	Okay, so you've made 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa a zone 
(delegated from bit.nl within 122.109.193.in-addr.arpa, which is 
delegated from RIPE's 193.in-addr.arpa), and this zone has an SOA and 
NS records defined.  Other than the fact that this zone is within the 
in-addr.arpa tree, this would seem to be fairly normal behaviour for 
any other zone in any other tree.

	However, it doesn't appear to have a PTR record.  Contrariwise, 
193.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa has an SOA, NS RRs, and a PTR.  I'm sure 
your other zones look similar.


	Bizarre.  Truly bizarre.  Somehow, I feel compelled to make some 
remark about "perverting the course of the DNS", or somesuch.

	It's a wonder you have any Internet connectivity at all.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)