This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
193.in-addr.arpa procedures V1.3
- Previous message (by thread): 193.in-addr.arpa procedures V1.3
- Next message (by thread): 193.in-addr.arpa procedures V1.3
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
rv at deins.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
rv at deins.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Thu Mar 25 11:57:35 CET 1993
Hi Marten, > One last go. I think we folded in most of the comments from Blaso and others. In general looks fine. There is one point where I ould make use of a bit more options. I have been working on how to use the data base to generate some parts of my name server configuration (and in particular preparing for this by inserting *rev-srv: fields in quite a number of records). > 2. The "rev-srv" field should ONLY contain one fully qualified domain > name of a nameserver which is authoritative for the reverse zone for > this network. I suggest to change the rule here slightly; I would find it useful to allow the single domain name to be followed by optional dotted-quad IP address(es) that can be used as glue. Sure, reverse mapping zones never should carry glue records - but the addresses are needed for generating named.boot on secondaries, and I see cases where I would like to have the address[es] from the data base. However please note, I'm saying "CAN be used" not "will/should/are"! Also I assume you are quietly implying (a) that the primary server will be listed first, or rather that secondaries configured automatically out of the data base will hook up to the first listed server as their source (b) that the database software will keep the relative order of fields with the same tag. Assumptions/assertions like these need to be made explicit. BTW the rules for "rev-srv:" and "nserver:" should be the same; however I think the proposed new rules for "nserver:" differ from documented rules - but IMHO make **much** more sense (for a long time I intended to suggest changing the rules in this direction). BTW, I will not be able to reformat my "segment" of the database according to the new rules before leaving for Columbus (though I'm quite well prepared for such tasks). Cheers, Ruediger Ruediger Volk Universitaet Dortmund, Informatik IRB DE-NIC Postfach 500 500 D-W-4600 Dortmund 50 Germany E-Mail: rv at Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE Phone: +49 231 755 4760 Fax: +49 231 755 2386
- Previous message (by thread): 193.in-addr.arpa procedures V1.3
- Next message (by thread): 193.in-addr.arpa procedures V1.3
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]