is reverse dns required? (policy question)

Thu Dec 2 17:08:42 UTC 2004

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:03:55 +0100, Andre Oppermann said:

> Reverse zone file for 10.0.0.0/24:
> 
>   1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa.   IN PTR   mail.example.com.
> 
>   _send._smtp._srv.1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa.   IN TXT   "1"

>   ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-03.txt

The problem with that is that for *Steven* to benefit from it, *I'd* have to
get the appropriate people here to stick in the appropriate stuff in the
in-addr.arpa zones for 128.173/16 and 198.82/16.  In other words, it suffers
from the same deployment problem as SPF records. (Actually, locally, it's
harder to deploy because SPF needs one TXT at the top of the zone, which is
mostly static and amenable to hand-editing - those __srv records on the other
hand are down in zones that are automagically written by software which then
needs to be modified to support splatting out the additional TXT record each
time...)

In other news, we discovered that when we published our SPF record, it managed
to push the DNS response over 512 bytes, as we already had several TXT records
and 5 NS/A records got returned as well - and we got bit by the usual places
that don't do TCP/53 or EDNS0.  Anybody else hit that one accidentally? (We
ended up jettisoning several TXT's and got it down to 410, so no problem now).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041202/b341b41d/attachment.sig>