In message <53d706300907081412r191946eeo5c9a66657bf8e...@mail.gmail.com>, Bryan
Irvine writes:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Kevin Darcy<k...@chrysler.com> wrote:
> > Bryan Irvine wrote:
> >>
> >> Other than to really annoy me; =A0is there a valid reason for rr rDNS?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Once upon a time, BIND specifically *disabled* round-robin behavior for
> > non-address (A/AAAA) record types. PTR RRsets, among other types, were
> > always given in a "fixed" order.
> >
> > But, I just tried a quick test, and it appears that round-robin has been
> > re-enabled for PTRs. Accident? I have no idea why anyone would want this
> > behavior, except perhaps to deliberately make things annoying and the que=
> ry
> > results inconsistent, in the hopes that people will prevent the creation =
> of
> > round-robin PTRs in the first place.
>
> Yes but is it explicitely forbidden anywhere? RFC's maybe? I can't
> find anything that says you shouldn't other than the majority of
> people say it's dumb. (Sometimes you need an RFC to point to in order
> to get someone to fix something that is clearly not working
> correctly).
> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
RRsets are unordered. Software and configurations should
be prepared for this. Where ordering is required it is
built into the RR type.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
