17 Apr
2014
17 Apr
'14
2:42 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Dean Gibson AE7Q <ampr(a)ae7q.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
An open question on ampr.org hostnames (see my response below):
On 2014-04-08 15:32, Brian Kantor wrote:
(Brian)
Exactly why is it, " a bad idea to delegate the forward lookup to your
nameserver without also delegating the reverse lookup, which would be
difficult and we do not do."? For that matter when address space is
delegated in the portal why not have the portal set reverse dns for that
address space as wel or even better, establish a NS record that delegates
reverse DNS as well? BCP20 Tells us how. Maybe require that those who
request reverse DNS also run a swip server for their allocated space as
well.
It does appear that DNS delegation would place less strain on coordinators
and others responsible for keeping ampr.org/net44 dns running. Why not
allow individuals who request it run their own? I'd propose we run a trial
and let that prove the pluses and minuses of DNS delegation and not
delegation. If it's such a bad idea, then why not demonstrate why to those
who disagree by allowing a small trial. If it's the horendous idea you
claim it to be then all of us who disagree and think it's a great idea
ought end up looking like fools with egg on our face and you get to go
see... OTOH, if it works out It could be of great benifet to the AMPRNET
community and a relief for the coordinators.
Eric
AF6EP
Dean, I feel it would be a bad idea to delegate
the forward lookup to
your nameserver without also delegating the reverse lookup, which would be
difficult and we do not do. You can continue to have as many names in the
ampr.org dns like ns1.ae7q as you like by having John set them up for
you, which will automatically set up the appropriate PTR record as well.
I'd much rather you did it this way.
Best wishes. - Brian