5 Feb
2013
5 Feb
'13
6:25 a.m.
I'm seeing a lot of good things in the works in the reforming of
amprNET/net44 including how ip address assignments and allocations are to
be handled and managed, routing info exchanged dynamically via rip and
other protocols, and the moving away from a single central point which all
traffic has to essentially tunnel to as address space can now once
allocated be tied to the appropriate AS and routed via BGP. all great
things being done. there are a few things though I have not heard
happening that I'll ask if they have been considered and what others
thoughts may be. This for the most part deals with a gateway operator
being able to manage the DNS zones pertaining to the operation of their
gateway and it's users.
for the sake of discussion lets say we have a gateway operator with a /24
block assigned to their gateway and let's say that block is
44.128.128.0/24and lets say their call was gw4opr:
I would propose that along with the allocation of that block that gateway
operator have the option to host and manage the 128.128.44.in-addr.arpa
zone on their DNS servers.
I would also propose that those who would choose to could host and manage
their own DNS zones, in this instance *.gw4opr.ampr.org.
It seems to just make sense that reverse dns would be managed by the ones
responsible for and closest to the address space assigned and that one
ought to be able to manage their own DNS zone without having to go through
their address coordinator for every last dns update as long as they are
willing to accept delegation of responsibility for their zone.
what are the thoughts on this from others on this list? Personally I think
delegation of zones is a great idea, but perhaps I missed something. it
would seem to further lighten the load on local coordinators. That said,
why should we or why should we not plan for, allow, and even encourage,
delegation and self management of DNS zones directly by those closest
connected to and most responsible for them?
AF6EP
5 Feb
5 Feb
6:58 p.m.
I wonder if the address coordinators could simply add an NS entry for those users who have
this need and the 44-net DNS could transfer the zone info or just point to the DNS server
for that zone. An ns.gw4opr.ampr.org could answer for that domain. This would allow those
who have sub domains to run their own DNS. This would limit the potential for malicious or
malformed entries into the 44-net DNS.
Regards,
Geoff Joy
KE6QH
On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:25, Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I'm seeing a lot of good things in the works in the reforming of amprNET/net44
including how ip address assignments and allocations are to be handled and managed,
routing info exchanged dynamically via rip and other protocols, and the moving away from a
single central point which all traffic has to essentially tunnel to as address space can
now once allocated be tied to the appropriate AS and routed via BGP. all great things
being done. there are a few things though I have not heard happening that I'll ask if
they have been considered and what others thoughts may be. This for the most part deals
with a gateway operator being able to manage the DNS zones pertaining to the operation of
their gateway and it's users.
for the sake of discussion lets say we have a gateway operator with a /24 block assigned
to their gateway and let's say that block is 44.128.128.0/24 and lets say their call
was gw4opr:
I would propose that along with the allocation of that block that gateway operator have
the option to host and manage the 128.128.44.in-addr.arpa zone on their DNS servers.
I would also propose that those who would choose to could host and manage their own DNS
zones, in this instance *.gw4opr.ampr.org.
It seems to just make sense that reverse dns would be managed by the ones responsible for
and closest to the address space assigned and that one ought to be able to manage their
own DNS zone without having to go through their address coordinator for every last dns
update as long as they are willing to accept delegation of responsibility for their zone.
what are the thoughts on this from others on this list? Personally I think delegation of
zones is a great idea, but perhaps I missed something. it would seem to further lighten
the load on local coordinators. That said, why should we or why should we not plan for,
allow, and even encourage, delegation and self management of DNS zones directly by those
closest connected to and most responsible for them?
AF6EP
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
7:05 p.m.
Sounds like a logical suggestion to me. I would be happy to post
example bind configs and documentation on how to make this all happen.
73,
C.J. KF7BMP
On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 03:25 -0800, Eric Fort wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I'm seeing a lot of good things in the works in the reforming of
amprNET/net44 including how ip address assignments and allocations are
to be handled and managed, routing info exchanged dynamically via rip
and other protocols, and the moving away from a single central point
which all traffic has to essentially tunnel to as address space can
now once allocated be tied to the appropriate AS and routed via BGP.
all great things being done. there are a few things though I have not
heard happening that I'll ask if they have been considered and what
others thoughts may be. This for the most part deals with a gateway
operator being able to manage the DNS zones pertaining to the
operation of their gateway and it's users.
for the sake of discussion lets say we have a gateway operator with
a /24 block assigned to their gateway and let's say that block is
44.128.128.0/24 and lets say their call was gw4opr:
I would propose that along with the allocation of that block that
gateway operator have the option to host and manage the
128.128.44.in-addr.arpa zone on their DNS servers.
I would also propose that those who would choose to could host and
manage their own DNS zones, in this instance *.gw4opr.ampr.org.
It seems to just make sense that reverse dns would be managed by the
ones responsible for and closest to the address space assigned and
that one ought to be able to manage their own DNS zone without having
to go through their address coordinator for every last dns update as
long as they are willing to accept delegation of responsibility for
their zone.
what are the thoughts on this from others on this list? Personally I
think delegation of zones is a great idea, but perhaps I missed
something. it would seem to further lighten the load on local
coordinators. That said, why should we or why should we not plan for,
allow, and even encourage, delegation and self management of DNS zones
directly by those closest connected to and most responsible for them?
AF6EP
_________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
4306
days inactive
4307
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP -
Eric Fort -
Geoff Joy