Chris Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's the conventional advice, of course, but does lead to a proliferation > of reverse zones. It seems to me that if one believes that DNAMEs really do > work (by virtue of the synthesized CNAMEs), then one ought to be able to use > them in an RFC2317-like way in cases like this:
DNAMEs really do work. > $ORIGIN b.a.in-addr.arpa. > @ SOA ... > NS ... > 0-127 NS (delegation for the /17) > 128-191 NS (delegation for the first /18) > 192-255 NS (delegation for the second /18) > 0 DNAME 0.0-127 > 1 DNAME 1.0-127 > ... > 127 DNAME 127.0-127 $GENERATE 0-127 $ DNAME $.0-127 > 128 DNAME 128.28-191 > ... > 191 DNAME 191.128-191 $GENERATE 128-191 $ DNAME $.128-191 > 192 DNAME 192.192-255 > ... > 254 DNAME 254.192-255 > 255 DNAME 255.192-255 $GENERATE 192-255 $ DNAME $.192-255 > and then the delegatees have only three zones > > 0-127.b.a.in-addr.arpa. > 128-191.b.a.in-addr.arpa. > 192-255.b.a.in-addr.arpa. > > to look after, each of which they populate as if they were (incomplete) > reverse zones for b.a.in-addr.arpa. yes. > This is only a thought experiment: has anyone actually tried to do > something like this? yes. -- Paul Vixie
