[Dnsmasq-discuss] Feature Request(s)
rob at zwissler.org
Fri Mar 16 00:02:53 GMT 2012
I think he was talking about multiple PTR records for a single IP, not
multiple PTR records all returning the same hostname (which agreed, is
clearly a reasonable usage). It does look like bind will do it, but seems
like an unusual thing to do; although I didn't see an explicit mention of
it being poor practice in RFC 1912, or a couple other RFCs I skimmed, but
I'm far from a DNS guru. Is there a legitimate use to that?
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;126.96.36.199.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR
;; ANSWER SECTION:
188.8.131.52.in-addr.arpa. 604800 IN PTR hostname.domain.com.
184.108.40.206.in-addr.arpa. 604800 IN PTR hostname-2.domain.com.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ben Finney <
bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> /dev/rob0 <rob0 at gmx.co.uk> writes:
> > You CAN have as many PTR records as you want on any name. However,
> > it's unlikely to do anything useful.
> It can be quite useful, since machines can have multiple NICs on the
> same network (for redundancy, among other reasons) each presenting a
> different IP address.
> \ “The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a |
> `\ question, but to post the wrong information.” —Aahz |
> _o__) |
> Ben Finney
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss