Anyone from AT&T DNS?

Matt Peterman mpeterman at apple.com
Thu Oct 5 03:18:25 CST 2017


Got it! You’re the winner here. I just setup both of my zones the name way and obviously AT&T changed the way they did RDNS entries from when I got a /25 last November and this second /25 in June. Oh well!

Now I am running into the challenge of Route53 does seem to support creating an authoritative zone for "128/25.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.” It changes it to "128\05725.168.207.107.in-addr.arpa.” every time… *sigh* If it isn't one thing its something else. 



> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:11 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Matt Peterman <mpeterman at apple.com <mailto:mpeterman at apple.com>> wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> 
> if I had to guess I'd say that 'sometime long ago' they did one way, then decided to just follow the RFC ... which probably also makes their provisioning automation much simpler.
> 
> as I said, there are more than 1 way to skin the cat :( sadly you (and I, at least) were used to the 'old fashioned method' welcome to 1998 (apparently!) :)
>  
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:53 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com <mailto: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