RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

[Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>]

> From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>

> ...
> > That seems to be based on the mistaken notion that there can be only
> > a single PTR RR per IP address.
>
> There can only be one canonical reverse mapping for an IP address.

Where does the word "canonical" appear in RFC 1034 in connection with
PTR RRs?

>                                                                     There can 
> be multiple forward A records.  That is not to say the a PTR record can't be 
> dynamically configured. However, yes that is the case for any instance for a 
> transient or permenant assignment of a PTR RR AFAIK.
>
> 100	IN	PTR	domain1.com.
> 	IN	PTR	domain2.com.
>
> does not work AFAIK, I will give it a shot.

Those are quite similar to the lines that temporarily cause this:
    % nslookup -d 192.188.61.4
    ...
	QUESTIONS:
	    4.61.188.192.in-addr.arpa, type = PTR, class = IN
	ANSWERS:
	->  4.61.188.192.in-addr.arpa
	    name = andesite.rhyolite.com
	    ttl = 86400 (1D)
	->  4.61.188.192.in-addr.arpa
	    name = ns3.rhyolite.com
	    ttl = 86400 (1D)
    ...


See also http://www.google.com/search?q=%22multiple+ptr%22+dns


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg