[Dnsmasq-discuss] Feature Request(s)

Rob Zwissler 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:
;149.50.14.10.in-addr.arpa.     IN      PTR

;; ANSWER SECTION:
149.50.14.10.in-addr.arpa. 604800 IN    PTR     hostname.domain.com.
149.50.14.10.in-addr.arpa. 604800 IN    PTR     hostname-2.domain.com.

regards

Rob

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
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20120315/702d2bfe/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list