Anyone from AT&T DNS?
Matt Peterman
mpeterman at apple.com
Thu Oct 5 03:07:35 UTC 2017
You are correct through that that link does show having the CIDR prefix length in the CNAME which is weird because AT&T did not do this on my other /25 block. Interesting… Guess I need to do more digging.
Matt
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:53 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Matt Peterman <mpeterman at apple.com <mailto:mpeterman at apple.com>> wrote:
> The PTR record CNAMEs for my /25 allocated prefix are all messed up. They are returning as
> $ dig +short CNAME 128.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa
> 128.128/25.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.
>
> Which is obviously a completely invalid DNS entry. I have opened a ticket through the web portal for “prov-dns” but Haven’t gotten a response for 7 days.
>
> If anyone from AT&T DNS or knows anyone from AT&T DNS that can help it would be appreciated!
>
>
> isn't this one of the proper forms of reverse delegation in CIDR land?
>
> like:
> http://support.simpledns.com/kb/a146/how-to-sub-delegate-a-reverse-zone.aspx <http://support.simpledns.com/kb/a146/how-to-sub-delegate-a-reverse-zone.aspx>
>
> describes, or in a (perhaps more wordy fashion) in RFC2317?
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2317 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2317>
>
> I think it may be the case that the NS hosts are not prepared for such a domain/record mapping though... the nameservers that would need to to be authoritative for a zone like:
>
>
> 128/25.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.
>
> and have a bunch of PTR records like:
>
> 128 IN PTR foo.you.com <http://foo.you.com/>.
> 129 IN PTR bar.you.com <http://bar.you.com/>.
>
> etc...
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list